9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available. No enquiry has been made by the appellant to find out how the order copy was misplaced in another file. Further the date on which Commissioner’s office sought clarification is also not indicated. The reason as to why the affidavits signed by the same individual contained totally different grounds for condonation of delay are not forth coming anywhere in the documents. It can be seen that the so called consultation with experts started only after August 2013 and thereafter there was no delay at all since within two months, appeal was filed. We have not found any justification for the delay which has occurred and the documents have not been prepared properly and affidavits have not been filed with care and truthfulness or the corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submits that delay should not be condoned. Learned CA would argue that there were genuine reasons for not filing the appeal in time and the second affidavit explains all the reasons in detail whereas the first affidavit was not a detailed one. Therefore he submits that delay may be condoned. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the affidavits for better appreciation. 4. The first affidavit filed on 30/09/2013 after introductory paragraphs from 1 to 3, gave the reasons for delay in paragraph 4 which is reproduced below:- 4. The order-in-original issued by the Commissioner was received by the petitioner on 17/02/2012. Hence, appeal ought to have been filed on or before 17/05/2012. But as the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or and Chairman of the receipt of the order having a huge financial liability of more than ₹ 2 crores and also for getting instruction from them about the steps to be taken further in the matter. 6. At the time of receipt of the order at the Head Office at Kavarathy, Chairman of the petitioner society was Mr.Amarnath, IAS and Managing Director was Mr. Ravi Dadhich. At that time, Kavarathy office was under renovation and due to the shifting of files to the office of the Department of Tourism, a safe place the impugned order got misplaced in another file and nobody could take notice of this fact. Subsequently on 02/11/2012, Mr. Amarnath was transferred to Delhi and in his place Mr. Rajesh Prasad, IAS was posted and he took ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t up with a file in the Tourism Department. Therefore, it could not be traced out in SPORTS. It was only an inadvertent mistake on the part of the some dealing assistants in filing the order in the proper file. 9. The delay of 505 days occurred in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional and the appellant was in no way benefitted by delaying the filing of the appeal. It was solely due to the above said reasons and it was humanly impossible to trace out the impugned order from another file since nobody was aware in which file this order was kept. If the delay is not condoned a meritorious matter which deserves a decision from the Hon ble Tribunal will be thrown out at the threshold itself without being considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashi reported in 2014(33) STR 55 and condoned the delay of 826 days in filing the appeal for the reason of the appellant being a Government Department had to seek approval of higher authorities. 6. It can be seen from the two affidavits portions which are reproduced above, in the first affidavit, the reason given was that there was lot of consultations with experts regarding viability of filing and that was the only reason given. In the new affidavit filed and placed before us today, the following reasons have been given: a. Transfer of Managing Director and the Chairman. b. Renovation of the office. c. Shifting of the files to the Department of Tourism. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
