9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88107/2018 - M/86182/2018 - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Hemant Suchak, Asstt. Manager (Comm) for the appellant Shri D.S. Chauhan, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The delay in filing the present appeal is 215 days which stands attributed by the appellant to the concerned person having left the job without intimating the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal to the management. The appellants have submitted that they came to know about passing of the impugned order only when the revenue approached them for recovery of the dues in December 2017. Thereafter they approached the revenue for obtaining a copy of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther observed that one thing is clear that the Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception. Further, in the case of Ummer reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 199, it was observed that one cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since been diluted by the later decisions of this Court and is, therefore, held as no longer good law. To the same effect is the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, we are of the view that the delay should be condoned subject to the appellant paying some cost. 4. We also note that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue to establish the dispatch of the impugned order under registered AD or to establish the date of receipt of order by the appellant. In view of the foregoing and as the amount involved is ₹ 0.25 lakhs only, we impose a cost of ₹ 2000/- on the assessee subject to deposit of which within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the order, the delay would be condoned. (Dictated in Court) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Per: Sanjiv Srivastava 5. I have gone through the order dic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
