2015 (8) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cant firm was not aware of receipt of this impugned order. We find that there is no dispute that the order was served on the applicant on 21.8.2014. The impugned order was misplaced by the employee of the applicant firm. The discretionary powers to condone the delay under the provisions of Finance Act would be exercised when the applicant is vigilant and serious. In the present case, we find that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... advised to take complete rest for about two months. In the meantime, on 21.08.2014, the impugned order was served on them and their employee Shri Tapubhai Nathabhai Sadiya received the order and kept in some file, which was not informed to the proprietor. After joining the business in March 2015, the proprietor received a telephonic message from the department for recovery of penalty, and then, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t and therefore, delay should not be condoned. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the applicant is that the impugned order was received by his employee on 21.08.2014 and he had left the job from 15 September 2014; and the proprietor of the applicant firm was not aware of receipt of this impugned order. We find that there is no disp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X