2014 (9) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dly in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the statement itself should not be sufficient to condone the delay. It is, of course, true that the Revenue had pressed in service strong prima facie case and substantial questions of law being involved. These, though would be relevant considerations, cannot form the sole basis for condoning delay in absence of any explanation whats .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. He strenuously urged that the Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay when no explanation whatsoever was rendered by the Revenue. We are, however, of the opinion that when substantial questions were presented before the Tribunal, the Revenue s appeal should not have been dismissed merely on the ground of delay. If the application filed by the Revenue did not satisfy the Tribunal on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nation whatsoever. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to place the proceedings back to the Tribunal for giving one opportunity to the Revenue to file additional affidavit. 4. For such purpose, the impugned order dated 2-7-2012 is set aside. The proceedings shall be revived by the Tribunal. It would be open for the Revenue to file additional affidavit which shall be done latest by 30th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X