9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficant period, the Tribunal ought to have examined, whether the delay was deliberate, as mere negligence, by itself, in our view, would not disable the Assessee from having its matter decided on merits - the Tribunal has not carried out the said exercise, which is so very necessary, while dealing with the application seeking condonation of delay - Tribunal was also required to examine, qualitative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'). 2.1. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the application for condonation of delay, preferred by the Assessee, along with the substantive appeal filed with the said application. 3. The Tribunal, in coming to the said conclusion, has attributed negligence to the Assessee in not filing the appeal in time. 4. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies from its customers. As a matter of fact, there is a reference to the suit action filed against two (2) of its customers. 5.3. The averments, to this effect, are made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in the accompanying application for condonation of delay. 6. The Assessee has claimed that it has a good case on merits and that the demand for service tax raised is substantially barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal, we are of the view that though, the period of delay involved is 370 days, which, by no means, is an insignificant period, the Tribunal ought to have examined, whether the delay was deliberate, as mere negligence, by itself, in our view, would not disable the Assessee from having its matter decided on merits. 9.1. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has not carried out the said exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
