M/s.Hickson & Dadajee Pvt.Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

18th January, 2002 admittedly received petitioner 21st January,

2002. However, appeal petitioners 26th December, 2003 before Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. As appeal barred time, petitioners application condonation delay. The Tribunal 12th April, 2004 rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

That appeal preferred petitioners before Tribunal suffered 610 dispute. In application, petitioners the following facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the appeal belatedly: (a) (b) closure impugned The issued In Mumbai hearing Applicant company was declared as a sick industrial Companies Act (SICA). Financial Boisar before May, (in Reconstruction notice January, pursuant plants 1998, Applicants’ March Board 1998) (BIFR), 1999. a Industrial At employees 31, The time, officer 18 number Applicant company clerical conversant staff. 3 provisions relevant Act, 1962 was one Mr.Vaidya, who was the Commercial Officer in the Company. dispute Customs company Mr.Vaidya The services November, officers position Mr.Vaidya, nor was any person employed to take Mr.Vaidya’s place. 1998. subsequently Thereafter company duties 30th a submitted stopped march, It officers/staff regular basis. This situation continued till August, 2002. 1998 paying salaries onwards, attending Applicants a July, April, hearing company Since preparation company directed 19th directed provisional proposal period thereof, company (six the above activity from that date onwards. Balance 2001 March, 2002 remaining engaged Balance Sheets earlier years, BIFR. Further, BIFR Applicants before 2001, prepare Sheet rehabilitation weeks. all) a within a prepare As officer engaged officers pursuant a modified a result result As a Applicants skeletal paid any remuneration for the services rendered by them. staff, functioning BIFR proceedings, a result a As documents and file of the Applicants were in complete disarray. BIFR adequate proceedings staff, In September, September, 2002 management charge

2002. Order The BIFR, Patel Applicant time, company 19th Group passed viz., At (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 4 management fact that the impugned order had been passed in the month of January, 2002. completely unaware It 2003 recruitment process In 2003, make any inquiries and take any action in the matter. demand continued circumstances, notice management management employees. May/June, commenced This 2003. receiving July, September, despite 24th unable It received 2nd December, 2003, that it was in a position the materials utilized by them discharging the export obligation under the said Licence. Hence, the delay. " Notice management 1st (i) (j)

The preceding receipt 18th January, 2002 21st January, 2002 neither material relevant. It a 18th January, 2002 received petitioner-company January,

2002. With whatever petitioner had, diligently 21st challenging order, aggrieved thereby. Rather, appears BIFR proceedings on, petitioner matter months together. As a matter fact, Department served a demand notice Even petitioner 24th July,

2003. time, management place, nothing done. The management matter. At receipt demand notice 5 24th July, 2003, consequent passed 18th January, 2002, management swiftly. But remained inactive months together. Then second demand notice served 1st December,

2003. It appears thereafter petitioners filing appeal. We afraid, circumstances application sufficient condonation 610 days. The Tribunal cannot committed rejecting the application for condonation of delay and thereby dismissing the appeal.

We find no justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.