9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng which they had gone out of India has also not been explained and confirmed - No evidence of late receipt has been produced by the applicant. If the date of receipt of the appeal by the appellant is accepted as 23.11.2016 as claimed by them in their COD application, the appeal was filed by Revenue on 8.7.2016 and it is unlikely that the order was received by the applicant almost five and half ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2016 and they were required to file Cross-objection by 6.1.2017. However they filed the Cross-objection around 17.4.2017. Resulting in delay of 101 days in filing the cross objection. He argued that the delay occurred because of mis-communication between Chartered Accountant and CFO. 3. Learned Additional Commissioner (A.R.) registered the COD application. 4. We have gone through the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is seen that the said delay is solely for the reason of pure negligence. In the grounds of condonation of delay application no date chart has been given to explain a delay of over 100 days. The period during which they had gone out of India has also not been explained and confirmed. It is seen that the entire Cross-objection is challenging the levy of duty itself. In fact the perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on prescribed for filing appeal even giving a liberal interpretation does not mean that the delay can be condoned where sufficient reasons do not exist. In the case of MST Katiji and Others (supra) the delay was mere 4 days. In the instant case, the delay is over 100 days in filing the Cross-objection. If the date of receipt of the appeal by the appellant is accepted as 23.11.2016 as claimed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
