9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther, I also find that the applicant chose to file the appeals only when the recovery was sought to be effected - there is a gross negligence on the part of the applicant and I do not find it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 676 days - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/COD/20918-20919/2016 in E/20211-20212/2016-SM , E/20211-20212/2016-SM - Final Order No. 20048-20049 / 2017 - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The applicants/appellants have filed two appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No.718/2013-CE dated 30.12.2013 and Order-in-Appeal No.722/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal No. E/20212/2016. After depositing the interest, the applicant submitted the details of payment to the Assistant Commissioner requesting him to drop the further proceedings. Subsequently, the applicant received a letter dated 15.10.2015 directing the applicant to pay the penalty of ₹ 8,17,590/- in appeal No. E/20211/2016 and penalty of ₹ 20,65,822/- in appeal No. E/20212/2016 from the Superintendent, LTU. After that another letter dated 1.2.2016 was also issued to the applicant directing the applicant to pay the penalties. On receipt of this letter dated 1.2.2016, applicant realized that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the power to set aside the Orders-in-Appeal upon payment of interest and forwarded the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding before this Tribunal and has got number of officers looking after the legal affairs of the company. He also submitted that when the applicant received the said order on 13.1.2014 and at that time, there were appeals filed by the appellant on similar issue pending before the Hon ble Tribunal, however, the appellant did not file the appeal in these two cases in time but filed the same after a gap of 676 days when recovery was sought to be effected. He further submitted that the department has been issuing letters to the applicant asking him to deposit the penalty but the applicant did not bother to deposit the same and when the recovery was sought to be effected, thereafter they filed the present appeals. The learned AR also gave details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontested by the applicant, the applicant cannot plead ignorance. 3. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that there is a gross negligence on the part of the applicant in pursuing these two cases. Admittedly the applicant received the impugned order on 13.1.2014 but chose to file the appeal only on 18.2.2016 after a gap of 676 days. I also find that during the relevant period, on similar issues the applicant has been pursing cases before the Tribunal, the details of which has been filed by the learned AR. I also find letters dated 4.4.2014 and 29.5.2014 written by the department to the applicant for recovery of arrears but the applicant instead of filing appeals thereafter imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
