9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of law is involved in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. - SERTA 22/2019 and CM Nos.45479, 45480, 45481/2019 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2019 - CHIEF JUSTICE MR. C.HARI SHANKAR J. Appellant Through: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Mr. M.K. Khan, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Vijay Kumar Goswami and Ms. Priyansha Sinha, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Aman Rewaria, Adv. O R D E R D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) SERTA 22/2019 1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by CESTAT in Miscellaneous Application No. ST / COD / 50663 /2018 in ST/50787/2014 and Cross Objection Application No. ST/Cross/50662/2018 in ST/50787/2014 order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoned by CESTAT, New Delhi as there were no reasonable reason for condonation of the delay. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there were financial difficulties with this appellant. For filing of such a cross objection, the documents of the year 2005 and 2006 were to be found, and therefore there was a delay in filing the cross objection. Counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to various annexures and the averments about the financial difficulties faced by the appellant. 7. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in filing a cross objection, nominal court fees is required to be paid. It is also submitted by counsel for the respondents that looking at the condonation application pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were issued by CESTAT, New Delhi by this appellant and lastly notice dated 8th February, 2017 was received by this appellant on 14th February, 2017. The period of limitation is 45 days for filing of the cross objection from the date of receipt of the notice by CESTAT, New Delhi. Thus, the time limit to file cross objection was over on 31st March, 2017. This appellant preferred cross objection on 20th July, 2018. Hence there was a delay of 468 days in filing of the cross objections. (iii) The reasons given in the delay condonation application by this appellant before CESTAT, New Delhi especially in paragraph nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 read as under : 4. That Appellant company received notice of this Hon'ble Court issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay condonation application of this appellant vide order dated23rd July, 2019 (Annexure A-1). 10. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before this Court about the financial difficulties of this appellant which cannot be a reason for such a huge delay in filing the cross objections because the highest court fees to be paid is approximately ₹ 10,000/-, thus financial difficulty cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. 11. Moreover it is also submitted by counsel for the appellant that the record to be found out by this appellant was of the year 2005 and 2006. Hence, there was a delay in filing the cross objections. This also cannot the ground because the delay is of 468 days. Moreover several dates were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch mentions that the matter was being adjourned to 27 September, 2017 (without indicating as to on whose behalf adjournment was granted), all the orders specifically mention that the matter was being adjourned on requests made on behalf of the Applicant by its Counsel. The Applicant was represented by many Counsel, as can be seen from the order sheet. The names of the Counsel are also mentioned. The delay condonation application mentions that the Counsel engaged by the Applicant in 2017 did not pursue the matter effectively. The applicant had obtained service tax registration under construction service‟ and had undertaken many construction activity. It was also represented by many Counsel. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
