9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or approaching the High Court beyond such period of limitation - there is no question of any bona-fide to justify that after payment of Service Tax alongwith interest the penalty was also waived. Such, a presumption is not acceptable in absence of any cogent material on record. The facts of the present case is clearly show a gross negligence and deliberate in action in not approaching the Court within the prescribed time for filing an appeal before this Court - The appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning such a huge delay of 932 days. Delay condonation application is rejected - appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal Defective No. - 68 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Bharati Sapru And Piyush Agrawal JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile passing the Order-in-Original on 31.8.2009, a penalty of ₹ 23,94,424/-, was imposed. He relied upon the judgement in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji Ors. reported at 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC). The counsel for the respondent had argued that the grounds taken for condoning the delay is not correct and is only afterthought, just to cover the intentional delay in filing the present appeal. It was argued that right from Order-in-Original where penalty was levied and the same was contested by the appellant up to the Tribunal which was also confirmed. So, the appellant was not correct in saying that there was no liability left for assailing the order of Tribunal.The appellant has failed to show suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the order is received and in the event the parties failed to approach the High Court within the time allowed then the High Court has been given power to condone the delay if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The party in default i.e. not approaching the High Court within the period of limitation as provided under Section 35G(2)(a), is required to show sufficient cause for approaching the High Court beyond such period of limitation. The appellant had contested the matter up to the Tribunal challenging the levy of Service Tax interest and penalty. So, there is no question of any bona-fide to justify that after payment of Service Tax alongwith interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
