9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants. There is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals - application for COD dismissed. - ST/COD/41395-41396/2017 in ST/42223-42224/2017 - 40572-40573/2018 - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The above applications for condonation of delay are filed by the appellants seeking to condone the delay occurred in filing the appeals. 2. On behalf of the appellants, Ld. Counsel, Ms. S. Sridevi submitted that against the Order-in-Original dated 28.09.2011, the appellants had filed appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed under Section 78 and the penalties imposed under Section 76 77 would have to be paid. That appellant did not file the appeals in time, only due to the bonafide belief that all the proceedings against them have been concluded as they have paid the service tax, interest and 25% penalty in terms of proviso to Section 78. That they would have filed appeals against the impugned order if they were aware that they were also liable to pay penalties under Sections 76 77, since the copy of the impugned order was received from the Dy. Commissioner on 15.12.2016. That if computed from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order being 15.12.2016, there would be a delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. That the delay occurred only due to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumvent the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant is in fact paid the service tax, interest and the 25% penalty in terms of Section 78 of the Act and opted not to file appeal taking into consideration the delay that has occurred after receiving the copy of the impugned order. It was only later that the appellant has chosen to file the appeal taking the chance by filing application for condonation of delay. The appellant has not explained the delay for each day and no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Even after receiving the copy of the impugned order on 15.12.2016, the appellant has not filed the appeal within the prescribed period of three months and has caused a further delay of 195 days. This shows that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately on coming to know that an order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has taken more than one year from the date of knowledge of passing of the impugned order to file these appeals. We therefore find that the delay has been occurred due to negligence as well as willful latches on the part of the appellants. Another contention put forward by the appellant is that on receipt of the copy of the impugned order on 15.12.2016, the appellant did not file appeal within three months because they were advised that all the proceedings would be deemed to be concluded and that as there is considerable delay, the same may not be entertained. The contention of the appellant that they did not prefer an appeal due to such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
