9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been noticed, is that a medical certificate is already on the record to show that the appellant was sufferring from backache which may have even continued prior to the period of obtaining the medical certificate. Tribunal while dismissing the appeal has become rather harsh in rejecting the appeal of the appellant which in the facts and circumstances of the case was not required to be rejected on this premise. - Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on merit. - DB CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 4/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - MR. AJAY RASTOGI AND MR. J.K. RANKA JJ. Mr. P.K. Kasliwal for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Shukla for the respondent. JUDGMENT: 1. The instant appeal is directed against the order 27.9.2012 passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for condonation of delay was there with delay of 146 days and it was clearly stated in the application that the assessee was sufferring from backache namely Lumbago backache in Radiation/Lumbo Sacral pain and the Tribunal without confronting with any further material on record, rejected even the application for condonation of delay on its own reasoning which is not just and proper. The medical certificate was filed which stated the illness/injury of the backache and the Tribunal was not at all justified in imputing the said certificate, the delay was not so abnormal that could not have been condoned by the Tribunal. Reasonable cause having been pleaded the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and contended that on the merits also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected on this premise. A litigant who suffers would normally avail the remedy available under the law within the limitation period as it is he who is the ultimate sufferer because in the instant case, as well, service tax has been levied and has been upheld by the first appellate authority, as well. It is true that the appellant ought to have been vigilent and not indolent but equally important is the fact that reasons for delay ought to be taken in consideration while dismissing the appeal at the threshhold, substantial justice is required to be done and we accept the contention of the appellant that the delay in such facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been reasonably considered and we are satisfied and would condone the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
