The High Court of Bombay condoned the appellant's delay in filing a Notice of Motion allowed in a Central Excise appeal, accepting the explanation for the delay.
Notice of Motion allowed; delay condoned.
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.
mdp
1/1 nm 178-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.178 OF 2019 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L.)NO.10 OF 2019
Trimurti Containers Private Limited …Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III, Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III.
...Respondent
Ms. Pragya Koolwal, M/s. UBR Legal for appellant. Mr. Sham Walve and Mr. Ram Ochani for respondent.
CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 12th April 2019
P.C.:
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The delay is explained by the appellant on the basis of the time spent in filing and prosecuting application for rectification of mistake. Sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
Trimurti Containers Private Limited
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III
A.S. Oka
M.S. Sanklecha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
