9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filing the present appeal. - Decided against the assessee. - 1408 of 2011 - STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/536/12 ,FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/377/12 ,MISC ORDER NO. ST/M/187/12 - Dated:- 17-4-2012 - Archana Wadhwa And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Jaswinder Singh, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K P Singh, AR. Per: Archana Wadhwa: The application is for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the impugned order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.2.2007 whereas the appeal stands filed by the appellant on 17.8.2011 i.e. almost after a gap of three and a half year. 3. For better appreciation of the reasons advanced by the appellant for condoning the delay, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culture vide letter dated 18.01.2008 for making arrangement for nomination of Govt. counsel through which, the DMI can file appeal the CESTAT. Accordingly the case was processed and was sent to Shri Mukesh Anand, Senior Central Govt. Counsel vide communication dated 06.02.08, for appearing and contesting the matter the CESTAT on behalf of DMI. 7. That there after the draft appeal was prepared by the counsel in consultation with the DMI and placed before the Head of the Department, DMI on 29.04.2008. Upon the approval by the H.O.D. the draft was sent to the Ministry of Agriculture on 06.05.2008 for getting it vetted from the Department of Legal Affairs. 8. That the vetted draft appeal was sent to the Ministry of Agriculture on 06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... griculture Cooperation to consult the Deptt. Of Legal Affairs arrange to get nomination of one Senior Central Govt. counsel for filling the appeal. 14. That Deptt. Of Legal Affairs vide letter dated 12.01.2009 nominated. Sh. Sanjay Katyal, Senior Central Govt. Counsel for filing the appeal. 15. That Sh. Sanjay Katyal while discussing this case with the office of Directorate of Marketing Inspection advised to seek clarification from the Deptt. Of Revenue whether the OM No.255/1/2006-CX.4 dated 18.12.2006 issued by them is from prospective effect or retrospective effect. 16. The Directorate of Marketing and Inspection vide letter dated 06.03.2009 requested Deptt. Of Revenue to clarify this so as to enable Directorate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.3.2011, a number of documents were supplied to the Govt. Counsel for filing the appeal. Again on 9.3.2011, certain other relevant documents were supplied to the counsel. That vide letter dt.17.3.2011, the relevant note sheets pertaining to the matter were also enclosed and sent to the Govt. Counsel. That the counsel concerned was briefed thoroughly on different dates thereafter as the present is a complicated matter. Thereafter the counsel prepared the appeal on 13.4.2011 which was singed by the competent authority on 20.7.11. The same was returned to the counsel on 20.7.11 and the present appeal was filed thereafter without any further delay. 22. That the delay occurred in the present case is neither wilful nor intentional but only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that the appeal was not filed. It is clear from the last paragraph that the appeal was prepared on 13.4.2001 but was singed by the proper officer only on 20.7.2011. There is no explanation for such long gaps in between various actions of the applicant. The appreciation of the entire consequence of events, as reflected in the above application reflects upon the casual approach of the applicant and lapses on their part to take the matter seriously and to file the appeal within the limitation period. In spite of the fact that a draft appeal was vetted in or around July 2008, the actual filing of the same occurred on 17.8.2011. We find no justifiable reasons, to condone such a huge delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
