9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1996 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 101 days commencing from the day of receipt on 05.02.2018 - HELD THAT - It is observed that delay of 101 days is commencing from the return of papers. The Appeal in fact had been put in dispatch on 05.11.2017 and received by this Tribunal on 10.11.2017 as is apparent from the stamp of this Tribunal on Form No. ST-5 of this Appeal. After removal of defects it was received on 27.02.2018. Thus, it becomes clear that the Appeal was initially filed though after a period of 60 days but before the expiry of the period of 90 days. The time taken for defect removal since has to be excluded. There seems no apparent delay to be condoned. Application disposed off.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue at hand was the condonation of a delay of 101 days in filing an appeal. The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of the delay, stating that the appeal against the Order dated 28.08.2017 was initially sent on 05.11.2017 but returned due to defects. The appeal was resubmitted on 12.05.2018, along with the condonation application. The Delay was from the return of papers, not the initial filing date. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was dispatched on 05.11.2017, received on 10.11.2017, and after defect removal, received on 27.02.2018. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was initially filed within the required time frame, and the time taken for defect removal should be excluded from the delay period. As there was no apparent delay to be condoned, the application for condonation was denied, and the matter was listed for final hearing. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in filing appeals and the discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delays. It clarifies that the delay period should be calculated from the return of papers, not the initial filing date, and that time taken for rectifying defects can be excluded from the delay period. The decision underscores the need for parties to diligently comply with filing requirements to avoid delays and potential dismissal of appeals.
|
