9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT) made in Final Order No.40165 of 2014 dated 07.3.2014 in ST/COD/42397/2013 and ST/S/42398/2013 and ST/42446/2013. The appellant herein is the applicant before the CESTAT in ST/COD/42397/2013 and ST/S/42398/2013. 3. Brief facts are that the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai V Division had issued show cause notice to the appellant on 21.4.2009 proposing the demand of a sum of Rs. 41,200/- along with appropriate interest on the ground that the appellant cannot have the benefit of the provisions of Rules 6(3) or (4A), 4(B) of the Service Tax Rules and also proposed to impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant submitted their response dated 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and subsequently, the affairs of the Company came to stand still. Hence, prays for condonation of the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal. 5. The CESTAT found that the reasons for the delay adduced by the appellant herein are not proper and dismissed the application seeking for condonation of delay. Hence, this appeal. 6. In the grounds of appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised:- (1)Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the death of the daughter of the Director of the appellant Company and that the fact of the concerned employee of the appellant Company left the job during the relevant period is not relevant or admissible reasons for condonation of delay is just and proper in the light of the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the appeal with delay condonation application. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court that the reasons adduced in the application seeking condonation of delay of 196 days in filing the appeal are proper and sufficient cause has also been made out by the appellant for condoning the delay and therefore, the CESTAT was not right in rejecting the said application. Therefore, substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal answered in affirmative infavour of the appellant. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order of the CESTAT dated 07.3.2014 made in Final Order No.40165 of 2014 in Appeal No.ST/COD/42397/2013 in ST/Stay/42398/2013 in ST/42446/2013-SM, is set aside and the delay of 196 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
