1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1104 OF 2010 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2004. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II, Mumbai. ..Appellant. v/s. M/s. Jindal Iron & Steels Co. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.S. Rao, for Appellant. Mr. Vishal Agarwal, a/w. P.K. Shetty, for Respondent. .... CORAM : V. C. DAGA & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 8TH JUNE 2010. P.C. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Perused Notice of Motion. 2. The delay in taking out the Motion for restoration of Appeal is 1996 days. Having gone through the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion, we do not find sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of almost 1996 days. The reasons given are general, vague and without material facts and particulars. It does not inspire judicial confidence. 3. Notice of Motion is therefore, rejected, with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ] [V. C. DAGA, J. ]