9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d attorney. But no affidavit by the person concerned, who had retired was filed. It is apparent from the order of the Tribunal that no further opportunity was given to the assessee to establish its contention by filing affidavit of the concerned person. In the supplementary affidavit filed before us, the affidavit has been annexed - in the given circumstances of the case, at least a further opportunity should have been given to the assessee to explain the reason for delay. We, therefore, answer the question, on which we have admitted the appeal, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a decision afresh. - GA NO. 2518 OF 2016 With CEXA NO. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit-inopposition to the stay petition and the supplementary affidavit. We had directed filing of such affidavit in-opposition by 28th November, 2017 which was also recorded in our order. The said direction was made peremptory. This matter was listed again on 4th December, 2017 on which date the Revenue went unrepresented. Today the matter has appeared in the list and Mr. Bhattacharya renewed his prayer for extension of time to file affidavit-in-opposition. Considering the limited point on which the appeal is being heard, we decline the prayer for extension of time to file such affidavit. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the appellant by rejecting its application for condoning the delay of 651 days. The appellant s case as regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has been filed in these proceeding to justify the delay . Subsequent searches in the office records made the appellant recover the said OIA dt . 18/12/12 . The reasons for delay of 657 days have not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant . Accordingly MA(COD) filed by the appellant is rejected and corresponding appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed . Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the Revenue has resisted this appeal relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anvil Cables Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax reported in (2015) 17 SCC 372. In that case, the assessee had prayed for condonation of delay on causes which were found to be afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
