9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on record a copy of Order-in-Appeal No. 111/RPR-I/2010, dated 25-3-2010 in his own case. In the aforesaid order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that Shri Sunil Agrawal, Consultant of the appellant appeared for personal hearing on 25-2-2010. From this it is evident that even after passing of the impugned order in December 2009 Shri Sunil Agrawal, C.A. continued to represent the appellant in excise matter. Therefore, it is highly improbable that Sunil Agrawal would not have communicated the dismissal of appeal to the appellant. Further though the explanation given for delay is that due to personal difficulty Shri Sunil Kumar, Chartered Accountant could not communicate the impugned order to the appellant, affidavit of Shri Sunil Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Range office on 18-1-2012 and preferred the appeal against the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pressed for condonation of delay in filing of appeal on the plea that the delay caused in filing of appeal is unintentional and it has occurred because of failure on the part of authorized representative of the appellant to communicate the impugned order to the appellant. It is also contended that the copy of impugned order was never served on the appellant. Learned Counsel has also pleaded that it is well settled that the Courts and Tribunal while dealing with the application for condonation of application should adopt liberal approach. That unless there is gross negligence or mala fide on the part of the litigant, doo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above it is evident that the Appellate Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing of appeal provided sufficient cause for delay is shown by the appellant. 7. Before adverting to the explanation given by the appellant for delay in filing of appeal it would be pertinent to note that in the instant case, the jurisdictional adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 28-8-2008 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 36,42,083/- against the appellant along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. The appellant preferred appeal against the Order-in-Original. Commissioner (Appeals) vide interim stay order dated 18-2-2009 directed the appellant to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs in terms of Section 35F of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on record a copy of Order-in-Appeal No. 111/RPR-I/2010, dated 25-3-2010 in his own case. In the aforesaid order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that Shri Sunil Agrawal, Consultant of the appellant appeared for personal hearing on 25-2-2010. From this it is evident that even after passing of the impugned order in December 2009 Shri Sunil Agrawal, C.A. continued to represent the appellant in excise matter. Therefore, it is highly improbable that Sunil Agrawal would not have communicated the dismissal of appeal to the appellant. Further though the explanation given for delay is that due to personal difficulty Shri Sunil Kumar, Chartered Accountant could not communicate the impugned order to the appellant, affidavit of Shri Suni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
