Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S J S P Security

After hearing counsel for the petitioner on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily been explained which is supported by affidavit of counsel.

¶13

Consequently, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay in filing restoration application is condoned.

¶14

Heard on the restoration application filed for recalling & restoration of the appeal. The application is duly supported by affidavit of counsel. This Court is satisfied with the explanation furnished.

¶15

The per-emptory order dt.17/09/2014 passed by the Court and the consequential order dt.12/11/2014 issued by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) shall stand recalled and the appeal be restored to its original number provided the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.1000/- with the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Office, Rajasthan High Court Campus, Jaipur within two weeks.

¶16

Raghu/p.1/

¶17

[J.K. RANKA],J. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.

¶18

2

¶19

3

¶20

Certificate:All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. Raghu, Sr. PA.

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S J S P Security

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S J S P Security

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Arj and Ors. Vs Amar Chand and Anr.

Assistant Engineer P W D Vs Smt Kesar Bai andANR

Babu Lal Sharma Vs State Revenue Departmentors

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Amco India Ltd. Bhiwadi

Ram Sharan Mathur and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur Vs M/S Apex Met Chem Pvt. Ltd.