9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t communications - There was no intentional lapse on the part of the assesse to delay filing of appeal. The subsequent order of Additional Commissioner confirming demand of duty as a consequence of rejection of remission application was challenged by the assesse within the period of limitation - if the department responded to their first communication, when the limitation period was yet to expire the delay in filing of appeal could not have been caused - the delay in the present appeal stands contributed by the Revenue and in fact the assesse had to take the strong legal remedy available to them, by way of filing of writ-petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. - Delay condoned. - Appeal No. 1823 of 2011 - Misc. Order No. 56009/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. As the said communications made by the appellant were not being responded to by the Revenue, they approached the Hon ble High Court of Delhi for directions to the Revenue to supply a copy of the impugned order. Revenue, during the course of hearing before the Hon ble High Court, handed over the impugned order to the appellant on 11/5/11. The writ-petition filed by the appellant was disposed of by the Hon ble High Court by taking note of the above supply of papers and with liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal for condonation of delay, which was required to be considered to dispose of on merits. The Revenue also made a contention before the Hon ble High Court that the impugned order was sent by speed post to the appellant on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 11/5/11 before the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the appeal having been filed on 25/7/11, is required to be held as having been filed within the limitation period. 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the impugned order was issued on 31/8/09. By the said order the applicant s remission application was rejected. Thereafter another order was passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of duty, based upon the rejection of remission vide the impugned order. Admittedly, the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner was received by the applicant. Immediately they addressed a letter to the Revenue on 22nd October 2009 indicating that they have come to know about the passing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on 11/5/11 and it was lapse on the part of the Revenue to respond to their very first letter addressed on 22nd October 2009 and the subsequent communications. As such, without going into the fact as to whether the impugned order was handed over to the appellant s representative on 4/9/09 and thereafter sent by speed post on 7/9/09, we are of the view that there is no intentional lapse on the part of the appellant to delay filing of appeal. We also note here that the subsequent order of Additional Commissioner confirming demand of duty as a consequence of rejection of remission application was challenged by the appellant within the period of limitation. As such, it cannot be said that the delay in filing present appeal was on account of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
