The Bombay High Court allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a Tribunal order. The respondent was absent, and the court was satisfied with the reasons for the 93-day delay.
Motion for condonation of 93 days delay in filing appeal allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
496-18-NMA-15=.doc
Uday S. Jagtap
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 496 OF 2018 IN
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 60 OF 2018
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai .. Applicant
In the matter between
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai .. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Ram Ochani for the applicant / orig. appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J.
DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
P.C.
appeal from the order dated 27th February, 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).
Digitally signed by Uday Uday Shivaji Jagtap Date: Shivaji 2018.09.28 11:05:26 Jagtap +0530
1 of 2
496-18-NMA-15=.doc
Uday S. Jagtap
Mr. V. Vijayakumar, Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE, Navi Mumbai and are satisfied with the reasons indicated therein for the delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
2 of 2
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai
M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd.
M.S. Sanklecha
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
