9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 155 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - 192 days - matter is related to the refund claim of Cenvat credit which was passed in the favour of assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue prefer the appeal against the said order to various authorities, there was a delay on behalf of the revenue due to various grounds and then the registry raised objection that only one appeal was filed in a matter involving four orders in original the same was returned to them and thereafter it was rectified. - Held that - the entire matter has been handled too carelessly causing delay at each stage. - No merit in the application of the Revenue because the Revenue is bound to act more diligently in such matters - Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
Delay in filing appeals for refund of Cenvat credit; Condonation of delay application by Revenue; Merit of Revenue's application for condonation of delay. Analysis: The case involved four appeals filed by the Revenue regarding the refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue's Revision Application before the Revisionary Authority was rejected, leading to the filing of appeals before CESTAT. However, significant delays occurred at various stages, starting from the receipt of the order by the Commissioner to the filing of appeals. The delays were detailed in a date chart, highlighting the carelessness in handling the matter. The Revenue argued that delays were due to factors such as a six-month delay in receiving the order, delays in constituting the review committee, and objections raised by the registry regarding the number of appeals filed. Despite these explanations, the judge found that the delays were a result of careless handling by the Revenue, emphasizing the need for diligence in such matters. Consequently, the judge rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals. In the final order, the judge concluded that the delays were unacceptable due to the careless handling of the matter by the Revenue. The judge highlighted the Revenue's obligation to act diligently in such cases and, based on the lack of merit in the application for condonation of delay, rejected the application and dismissed the appeals.
|
