9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch case the ground of limitation cannot be diluted and the inordinate delay of 325 days cannot be condoned. - appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. - Condonation denied. - E/COD/24121/2014, E/COD/24122/2014, E/COD/24123/2014, E/23597/2014-SM, E/23598/2014-SM, E/23599/2014-SM - - - Dated:- 12-1-2015 - Archana Wadhwa, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Mr Harish R, Mr Raghavendra B, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr N Jagdish, AR ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa: All the 3 COD applications are being disposed of by a common order, though they arise out of two separate orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Both the orders of the appellate authority are dated 30.09.2013 and were received by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Another Vs. MST. Katiji and Others [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C)] laying down that no litigant stands benefited by longing an appeal late and refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. He also submits that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court substantive benefit should not be done away with on the basis of technical consideration. As such he prays that the delay be condoned and the matter be taken up on record for disposal on merits. 4. Countering the arguments learned DR strongly objects to the condonation of such a huge delay of 325 days and submits that no reasonable and justifiable cause stand shown by the appellant. He submits that even as per the appellant, Mr. Ravish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her such a reason given by the appellant for condoning the huge delay of 325 days can be held to be plausible and acceptable reason or the delay has to be held as having occurred on account of gross negligence on the part of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C)] has considered the entire precedent decision on the issue including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another . It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that inasmuch as the appellant in that case was aware of its responsibility to file the appeal well within the limitation period, the delay can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the appeal. 8. Tribunal in the case of Mars Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2009 (233) E.L.T. 128 (Tri.-Del.)] has refused to condone the delay of 46 days claimed to have occurred on account of bona fide belief of the dealing person of the assessee that there was no need to file any appeal. Similarly in the case of United Telecoms Ltd. Vs CC, Bangalore [2007 (207) E.L.T. 698 (Tri.-Bang.)] rejected the appellant's application to condone the delay of 299 days. Similarly in the case of Shasun Chemicals Drugs Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy [2002 (147) E.L.T. 342 (Tri.-Chennai)], delay of 29 days was not condoned by rejecting the appellant's contention that the official dealing with the issue was out of station. 9. As already o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
