9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the writ petition in the High Court claiming against 100% penalty. There is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed during the period with effect from December, 2010 to May, 2011. Therefore, the appellant was grossly negligent in pursuing the remedy available to him and has miserably failed to explain sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 812 days in filing the appeal - against the assessee. - E/2912/2011 - A/514/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 1-5-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. This COD application has been filed by the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of his contention, the appellant has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantang v. Mst. Katiji and Others - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). 3. Shri Nagesh Pathak, learned AR for the Revenue refuted the argument and submitted that this appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of more than two years and no sufficient cause has been shown for failure to file the appeal within the period of limitation after the lapse of long time. Ld. A/R is thus pressed for dismissal of application as well as appeal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the appellant did not prefer to file the appeal and ultimately in May, 2011, the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court claiming that the department could not have imposed 100% penalty in view of existing rules. There is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed during the period with effect from December, 2010 to May, 2011. Therefore, now, the plea that the appellant was pursuing the wrong remedy in the High Court due to mistaken belief is not available to the applicant/appellant. The judgments relied upon by the appellant in our respectful view are based on peculiar facts of those cases and are not applicable to this case wherein the appellant has been grossly negligent. 7. In view of the above, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
