K-^S^^^^'S- '-"7 llltJJIIUUJij.;J HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATDSGARH : BILASPUR SingleBench: Hon'b!eShriS.R.Nayak,CJ Writ Petition N0.6153 OF 2005 PETITIONER Vereus RESPONDENTS M/s Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd. (SmallScale Industry Unit) 0-2, Farishta Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Dist:- Raipur (C.G.) 492 001 Through Its Director: B.K. Goyal S/o N.R. Goyal, Aged about SSyears. The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Central Revenue "Building, Civil Lines, Raipur The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066 Present: Mr. B.P. Mishra, tearned cpunsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on 6tn of December 2005) The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appetlate Tribunal, New Dethi has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petiUoner herein on the ground of delay. There was delayof 1178 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was directed agamst the order of the Commisstoner 6f Central Excise dated 08-05-2001. The only explanation offereft in the application fited by the petitioner for condonirig the inordinate delayof 1178 days was that the orderpassed by the Commissioner of Central Excise is not in properformat, meaningthereby, the order did not contain the Preambte to be incorporated in the order. The Tribunal not being satisfied with the above explanation dismissed the application and -i 2^. eonsequently dismisssd the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petjtloner. The same contention which was urged before the Tribunal was reiterated before me also. The contention is not acceptable to theCourt for more than one reason. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the copy of the order served on the petitioner there was no determination of annual capacity of their Rotling Mill. It is pointed out that the order made by the Comn'iissioner of Central Excise and served on the petitioner did contain the determination of annual capacity. Therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the sald determination, ought to have preferred an appeal within a reasonable time, if not, within the period of limitation. Alternatively, it needs to be noticed that if the petitioner who is not an individual but a company, really thought that it could not prefer an appeat to the Tribunal without incorporation of the Preambte in the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated8.5.2001, there was no impediment for the petitioner to move necessary application before the Commissioner seeking incorporation of Preamble in the prder. Such an attemptwas not made beforethe Commissioner within the reasonable time. The delay of 1178 days is not a smalt delaywhich the Gourt can ignore in a matter iike this. The law helps diligent, not indolent. In that view of the matter, 1 cannot take any excepUon tp Uie order of the Tribunal impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice