9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case - According to the assessee, it came to know about the dismissal of its appeal on account of non-compliance only when other appeals were decided by the Tribunal. This is not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Delay cannot be condoned - Application for condonation of delay is dismissed - CEA No. 10 of 2017 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR AMIT RAWAL, JJ. For The Appellant-Assessee : Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate For The Respondent-Revenue : Mr. Saurabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to the show cause notice saying that the goods were actually received by it and corresponding manufacturing records were produced. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner decided the show cause notice vide order dated 30.01.2009, whereby, recovery of Cenvat credit of ₹ 4,98,584/- along with applicable interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1924, was confirmed. Further, a 100% penalty amounting to ₹ 4,98,584/- was imposed along with payment of interest. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure A-3), the said appeal was dismissed. Still not satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng delay in filing the appeal in this Court. 5. This Court in VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2012 (M/s Hansaflon Plasto Chem. Ltd v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 5.7.2012 following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 and R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 had analyzed the broad principles for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as under:- 6. From the above, it emerges that the law of limitation has been enacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time limit for availing legal remedy for redressal of the injury caused. The purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his control and was inevitable. 6. The question regarding whether there is sufficient cause or not, depends upon each case and primarily is a question of fact to be considered taking into totality of events which had taken place in a particular case. In the present case, the Tribunal vide its order dated 01.11.2011 dismissed seven appeals including that of the assessee arising out of the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance. According to the assessee, it came to know about the dismissal of its appeal on account of non-compliance only when other appeals were decided by the Tribunal. We do not find this as a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. 7. In view of the above, the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
