9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, imposition of penalty, contradictory claims in application and affidavit
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI, the issue at hand is the delay of 16 months in filing the appeal, resulting in the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the applicant, described as the "authorised person" of HP Chain, Ahmedabad. The applicant claimed in the application that he believed the proprietor of HP Chain would file the appeal, not him. However, the Commissioner's order and penalty imposition clearly identified the applicant as the authorised person, not the proprietor, leading to the rejection of this explanation for the delay. Another issue arises from the contradictory claims made by the applicant in the application and the subsequently submitted affidavit. The affidavit stated that the applicant approached a consultant for filing the appeal, and the consultant mistakenly filed it in the name of Yogesh Patel, the proprietor of HP Chain. The applicant then believed the appeal was not necessary after Yogesh Patel's appeal was dismissed. However, the Tribunal found these claims inconsistent with the original belief of not needing to file the appeal, as no mention of a consultant was made in the initial application, and no substantial evidence was provided to support this new claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application and subsequently the appeal as barred by limitation due to the lack of a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The contradictory explanations provided by the applicant failed to convince the Tribunal to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
