9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 665 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Delay of 472 days - Shifting of office - Held that - In the case of Living Media (2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the hon ble apex court dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that at each and every stage the departmental officers has not taken any step to proceed with the case therefore the conduct of the departmental officers are found not to be reasonable. In these circumstances the hon ble apex court came to the conclusion that in the said case delay cannot be condoned. But the general principle as, has laid down by the hon ble apex court is that if the delay has been explained then the delay can be condoned. In this case, although the applicant has tried to explain the reasons for causing the delay which are not found to be satisfactory but in the interest of justice, we are condoning the delay in filing the Cross Objections subject to payment of cost of Rs . 25,000/-to be deposited in the Hon ble Prime Minister s Relief Fund. - Delay condoned conditionally.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing Cross Objections by the applicant.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue at hand was the condonation of delay in filing Cross Objections by the applicant. The applicant sought condonation of a 472-day delay, citing reasons related to shifting their office and changing consultants for filing the Cross Objections. The applicant relied on legal precedents such as the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs Mst. Katji, Paliwal Steels Pvt Ltd vs UOI, and Kamalin Engg Ind vs CCE, Salem to support their request for condonation. The learned A.R. representing the respondent strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay, highlighting the significant delay of 472 days. The A.R. referenced the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General vs Living Media India Ltd., where the delay was not condoned by the apex court due to the unreasonable conduct of departmental officers. The A.R. argued that the cases cited by the applicant involved shorter delays, making their application less applicable in this scenario. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, the Tribunal referred to the case of Living Media India Ltd., where the apex court emphasized the need for reasonable conduct by departmental officers in delay-related matters. Despite finding the reasons provided by the applicant unsatisfactory, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to condone the delay in filing the Cross Objections. However, the Tribunal imposed a condition for the applicant to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000 in the Hon'ble Prime Minister's Relief Fund as a penalty for the delay. The judgment concluded with a directive for compliance reporting by a specific date, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the decision made regarding the condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objections.
|
