The Commissioner Of Central Excise v. Surendra Hanumanmal Chhajed

nma2119 ssp FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2119 OF 2016 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L)NO.97 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Ms P.S.Cardoza for the Applicant None for the Respondent.

CORAM : A.S.OKA, & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 14, 2017 P.C.

Appeal preferred by the applicant stands rejected in accordance with Rule 986 of the High Court Original Side Rules as per the order dated 25th July 2013 passed by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master.

The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion is filed by a member of the Bar who has explained the delay.

It is pointed out that the earlier Advocate appointed by the applicant could not remove the office objection.

Accordingly, a case for condonation of delay is made out. Notice of Motion

nma2119 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to condition of the applicant removing all office objections in the appeal within a period of four weeks from today. If office objections are not removed within stipulated period, the order of rejection of the appeal passed by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master will stand. If compliance is made within stipulated period, the appeal shall be fixed for admission on the date fixed as per the C.M.I.S.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)