9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een that the appellant have not still deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal, though they have deposited 10% of the penalty in terms of the amended provisions of Section 35F. In terms of the directions of the Tribunal the appellant was duty bound to deposit 75% of the penalty amount. Having not deposited the same, the appeal has rightly been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa On matter being called, neither anybody appeared nor is there any request for adjournment. 2. We find that there is a delay of 1174 days in filing/presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. While examining the genuineness of the said delay, we have gone through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals). 3. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal. Vide Order No. 51116/2014 dated 18/03/2014, the appellant was again directed to deposit 75% of the penalty within the period of eight weeks and matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits, after ascertaining compliance with the Tribunal s order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deposit 75% of the penalty amount. Having not deposited the same, the appeal has rightly been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We also note that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is of 1174 days. No justifiable and reasonable cause stands advanced by the appellant for such a delay in filing the appeal. The huge delays, especially when the appellant s appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
