Mumbai City 16 v. M/S. Shakti Steels
High Court
24 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City 16 v. M/S. Shakti Steels
Date of order
24 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai City 16 v. M/S. Shakti Steels, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the dismissal of the notice of motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4021 OF 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4021 OF 2007
INCENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 2496 OF 2007
IN
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 2496 OF 2007
Commissioner of Income Tax
Mumbai City 16. .. Appellant.
vs.
M/s. Shakti Steels. .. Respondents.
Mr. S.M. Shah for Appellant.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2008.
DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C.
. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 298 days delay caused in filing the
Appeal.
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. The order is against the order of the
2
Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.7.2006 and the
Commissioner of Income-tax had granted approval for
filing an Appeal on 30.1.2006 the Appeal came to be
lodged belatedly on 23.10.2007.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for
delay that it was beyond the control of the
Commissioner of Income-Tax. There is absolutely no
merit in the reason given. No sufficient cause is made
out for condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion
stands dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the notice of
motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.