- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the common order dated 30th August 2012, whereby petitioner's Excise Appeal Nos. 434, 550 and 549 of 2009 have been dismissed on account of their being barred by time.
(2.) THE aforesaid three appeals were preferred by the petitioner after a delay of 273, 719 and 83 days respectively. In the cases of appeals preferred by the petitioner, plea was taken that one Mr. Bitru left the company on 29th October, 2008, without informing that he received the copy of the order which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner. The Tribunal has considered the fact of each of the appeals in paragraph Nos. 4.4, 4.5 and 4.7 of the impugned order and given cogent reasons for holding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered the facts and rightly reached to the conclusion that the cause shown by the petitioner appears to be only afterthought and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We do not find any reason to entertain these Tax Appeals, which are dismissed.;