9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondents : Ms S I Shah a/w Mr N V Kalantri i/b Mr S D Bhosale JUDGEMENT:- This is an Appeal filed against the order passed by the Tribunal Revenue refusing to condone the delay of 76 days in filing of statutory appeal. 2. The Appellants before us filed an Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. The Appeal challenges an order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps were taken to expeditiously file the Appeal. In the meanwhile, the Appellants reported compliance of the order under challenge subject to and without prejudice to their legal rights and contentions. Thus, they acted bonafide. There is no negligence, carelessness on their part and the explanation therefore deserved to be accepted in the submission of Mr. Patil . 4. On the other hand, Ms. Shah, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y negligent, careless and acted malafide, then, there was no need to take such a view. In fact, liberal principles ought to have been applied and delay deserved to be condoned with a appropriate direction of payment of costs so as to compensate the Respondent and balance the rights and equities. Once the explanation given is found to be genuine and not false, then, holding that the delay does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principles which should have been invoked and applied and having not done that, we are unable to sustain the order under challenge. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The delay condonation application is allowed. However, the Appellants shall pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/. The costs shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today. On the costs being paid to the Respondent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
