9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 372 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay - delay of 850 days in filing an appeal - held that - No merit in the application for condonation of delay. There is a colossal delay of 850 days in filing the appeal. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished. The plea taken in the application for condonation of delay is that the appellant-company being a sick company was lying closed and all its employees had left. There was only one male Director who due to heavy losses could not file the appeal. The said Director was making efforts for revival of the company for which dispute with the Excise Department is required to be settled. The appeal has, therefore, been filed which is belated due to these unavoidable circumstances. Such an explanation does not fulfil the test of sufficient cause so as to entitle the appellant for condonation of huge delay of 850 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. - Decided against the assessee.
Issues: Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
Analysis: 1. Issue: Condonation of 850 days' delay in filing the appeal. The applicant, engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting yarn, imported capital goods and raw materials without duty payment between 2001 and 2004. The respondent issued show cause notices demanding duty and imposed penalties. The Tribunal directed a deposit for appeal hearing, which was not fulfilled, resulting in dismissal. The appellant cited being a sick company with only one director as the reason for the delay. The court found the explanation unsatisfactory, ruling that the delay was not justified. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself. 2. Conclusion: The court did not find the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal to be sufficient. Despite the appellant's claim of being a sick company with limited resources, the court ruled that the circumstances did not constitute a valid excuse for the significant delay. As a result, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
|
