9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovides a period of 180 days for filing an appeal to this Court from the order of CESTAT. 2. The undisputed dates are as under:( a) The CESTAT passed the impugned order on 12 March 2010. (b) The appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake on 8 July 2010. (c) CESTAT dismissed the rectification application on 17 January 2011. (d) On 30 January 2012 the appellant filed Writ Petition in this Court challenging the impugned order which was disposed of on 31 August 2012 by this Court with liberty to file a fresh Petition. (e) The accompanying Central Excise Appeal was filed on 7 January 2013 and the present Notice of Motion for condonation of delay was filed on 10 January 2013 in this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfactory and throughly vague. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., 348 ITR 7 has while refusing to condone the delay, inter alia, observed: " In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentals that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was a bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation and ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules under Budget 2003. Vie Circular No.7/16/2003CX dated 6.3.03, the CBEC had also clarified that it was considered appropriate not to put any cap on the use of the AED (GSI) credit accruing prior to 1.3.2003. In terms of the provisions enacted in Finance Act, 2004, the debits were held not amounting to payment of duty and the assessee was required to meet the same obligation by payment from PLA. In the instant case, the debits were held to be of no consequence when the assessee was required to pay duty initially discharged using AED (GSI) credit. Therefore, the credit needed to be restored and was correctly ordered so by the Commissioner. We find considerable merit in the finding of the Commissioner that but fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
