TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f delay was that he was advised that another appeal filed by him as against the conditional order passed on 28.11.2013 would also be taken up together with this appeal. The Tribunal was not satisfied with this reasoning. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the reasoning stated by the appellant, we do not think that any substantial question of law would arise out of such an Order of the Tribunal. Even if we allow the appeal by taking a lenient view about the reasons for the delay and the hardship caused to the appellant, we do not think that the same would take the appellant anywhere. The reason is that so long as the conditional order on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, passed on 28.11.2013, is not set aside, the consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed on 20.12.2013 against stay application? 2. Heard Mr.Eswar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Laxman, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the Revenue. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts out of which the present appeal arises can be summarized as follows: 1) The petitioner suffered an order of original authority on 18.10.2012 demanding service tax to the tune of ₹ 18,54,000/- including cess for the period 2007- 2008 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2) The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner on 07.12.2012 along with applications for waiver of pre-deposit condition and for stay. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 20.12.2013, was filed after a delay of 812 days. Therefore, the appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 812 days. 9) The application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the CESTAT by an Order, dated 06.06.2018. It is against the said order that the above appeal has been filed under Section 35G. 4. It is contended by Mr.Eswar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the case on hand is a very hard case where the amendment brought into effect after 01.07.2010, proposing to levy service tax on brand promotional activities, has been applied retrospectively to an event in which the appellant participated in the year 2007-2008 and that therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndonation of delay was that he was advised that another appeal filed by him as against the conditional order passed on 28.11.2013 would also be taken up together with this appeal. The Tribunal was not satisfied with this reasoning. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the reasoning stated by the appellant, we do not think that any substantial question of law would arise out of such an Order of the Tribunal. 7. In any case, even if we allow the appeal by taking a lenient view about the reasons for the delay and the hardship caused to the appellant, we do not think that the same would take the appellant anywhere. The reason is that so long as the conditional order on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, passed on 28.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|