9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 882 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Delay of 246 days - Held that - reasons for condoning the delay of 246 days. It is particularly noted that the applicant is a Customs House Clearing Agent, who is well aware of the procedure of filing of appeal. We are unable to accept the plea that the learned consultant withheld the back papers for a long time. The learned AR rightly pointed out that the affidavit is without any supporting material. The contention of the learned AR that the impugned order was issued in the month of August 2009, which is disputed by the learned Advocate, is not supported by any material. Even, if we proceed on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel then there is a delay of 246 days. There is a gross negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant. - Condonation denied.
Issues: Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Analysis: 1. The applicant filed a COD application to condone a delay of 246 days in filing the appeal. The applicant cited personal trauma due to the kidnapping of their son in June 2009 as the reason for the delay. The appeal was eventually filed on 3-8-2011 after receiving a recovery notice from the Department in September 2010. 2. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, stating that the impugned order dated 27-8-2009 was served on the company and the consultant who appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) by registered post. The respondent argued that there was a delay of 609 days and questioned the lack of a valid reason for condoning the delay. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Rajmal Lakhichand - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.). 3. After considering both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the applicant, a Customs House Clearing Agent, claimed to have suffered mental agony and trauma until approximately December 2010. The appeal was filed in August 2011, long after the alleged period of trauma. The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay unsatisfactory, highlighting the applicant's familiarity with the appeal filing process and the lack of supporting material in the affidavit. 4. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the COD application. It rejected the application and dismissed the appeal along with the stay application, citing gross negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant. The decision was pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.
|
