9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o initially stated by him that they were not able to raise funds for making the predeposit. The delay of 467 days is very large and such explanations cannot be a ground for condoning the delay - thus, appellant has failed to put forward sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 467 days - delay cannot be condoned - COD application dismissed. - ST/COD/40260/2018 and ST/40635/2018 - Final Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him that the appellant had to make the mandatory predeposit as provided under section 35F of Central Excise Act r/w Section 83 of Finance Act and they had to deposit an amount equivalent to 10% of the amount confirmed in the impugned order. He was not able to mobile the amount to pay the entire demand of ₹ 12,65,821/- being the mandatory predeposit. Subsequently, the appellants were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... looking after the service tax matters. 3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy opposed the application. He submitted that the reason put forward by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay. The case of the appellant is that the staff was suffering from cancer and therefore failed to bring it to the notice of the management about the impugned order etc. are made-up stories and these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
