9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR ANAND NAINAWATI, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : JAIMIN A GANDHI, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI) 1. The appellant company, by way of filing present Tax Appeal, is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short the Tribunal ) whereby, the Tribunal did not condone the delay which has occasioned in preferring the appeal. 2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of salt at Okha Madhi Salt Works. The appellant took registration under the taxable categor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 days. Resultantly, an application came to be submitted for seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal after hearing the appeal has dismissed the application for seeking condonation of delay vide order dated 24.8.2015. It is against that order, present Tax Appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel, Mr.Anand Nanavati appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that delay of 148 days has occasioned on account of genuine cause beyond the control of the appellant and thereby, has submitted that though the said factor was submitted before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not considered and therefore, the order is arbitrary, without assigning cogent reasons and based upon technical consideration. It was submitted by learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Gandhi, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly exercised the discretion by not condoning the delay as the Tribunal found that there is no diligence or sincerity shown by the appellant in preferring an appeal. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a detailed affidavit in reply is filed to justify the reasons which are assigned by the Tribunal and thereby, contended that the delay of 148 days which is unexplained cogently, the order of the Tribunal may not be disturbed in the interest of justice. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the order impugned in the present appeal, we found that the relevant explanation which has been projected by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
