9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period, but as noticed above, the facts stated in the application filed for condoning the delay do not mention anything that may satisfy the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated period of four months - It is not the case of the Department that the communication dated 7 June 2018 sent by the Registry of the Tribunal was not received by the Appellant. Infact in the application filed for condoning the delay, it has been stated that the assessee had filed an appeal and the present appeal may be connected with the appeal filed by the assessee. The Department could have filed cross-objections also within the time stipulated but that was not done. There is no good reason to condone the delay - Application rejected - appeal dismissed. - SERVICE TAX COD APPLICATION No. 50848 of 2019 IN SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 52321 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER No. 51426/2019 - Dated:- 16-10-2019 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. A.Thaplial, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Mr. Varun Gaba, Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate and Chartered Accountat for the Respondent ORDER The Commissioner of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n compliance of Review order, appeal is being filed at the earliest by this office. 3. Further, it is gathered that the respondent has preferred an appeal against the order-in-original no. 12-13/PK/GST/DE/2017-18 dated 13.09.2018 before this Hon ble Tribunal. Therefore, it is requested to tag up the departmental appeal with the respondent s appeal so that two appeals are heard together by the Hon ble CESTAT. 4. It is humbly prayed that based upon the totality of the circumstances mentioned above, this Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to consider the prayer of the applicant in granting the condonation for delay of 463 days in appearing before this Hon ble Tribunal for justice and equity. 5. It is humbly submitted that this Hon ble Tribunal on scrutinizing facts and circumstances in the accompanying application, may please construe facts and circumstances as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The facts and circumstances elucidated in the accompanying application involve the question of substantial justice , where gross delay of days only, deserves to be condoned in the overall interest of justice. On the other hand if condoning the delay being denied it would seriou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 on 13 February 2018 and the appeal was actually filed before the Tribunal on 18 September 2019. 8. Section 86 of the Act deals with appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (1) of Section 86 provides that an assessee aggrieved by an order passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within three months of the date of the receipt of the order. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 86 provides that the Committee of Chief Commissioners may, if it objects to any order passed by the Commissioner direct the Commissioner to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. Sub-section (3) of Section 86 provides that every appeal under sub-section (2) shall be filed within four months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is received by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. 10. Sub-section (5) of Section 86 of the Act, however provides that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of the memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of the relevant period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 11. According to the Appellant, the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. However, whether the said changes were the cause of such delay or it was sheer negligence on the part of authorities in presenting the appeal. In the affidavit filed Appellant Commissioner has not given any reason to explain the delay on account of such structural changes. Not even an iota of whishper in the application or the affidavit filed explaining how such change in regime has caused the delay in pursuing the appellate remedy in present case. Except for a sweeping statement of fact, that GST was under implementation nothing has been stated. 5.7 Further can in the present case when the order in original under challenge was dated 26.03.2018 and was received by the Committee of Chief Commissioners on 25.04.2018, can delay in filing the appeal that was to be filed by 24.04.2018 be attributed to the implementation of GST. GST as stated earlier was implemented with effect from 1 July 2017. In this case the order in original is dated 26.03.2018, i.e. nearly nine months after such implementation. This order has been received by the Committee of Chief Commissioners on 25.04.2018, i.e. ten months after the date of implementation of the GST. It is no where sated that after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with acknowledgment due informed the Appellant that the appeal filed by the assessee will be heard by the Tribunal in due course. A copy of the memorandum of the appeal was also enclosed with a clear mention that it may be treated as notice under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 86 of the Act provides that the Principal Commissioner or an assessee as the case may be, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such an order within the 45 days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within time. 17. It is not the case of the Department that the communication dated 7 June 2018 sent by the Registry of the Tribunal was not received by the Appellant. Infact in the application filed for condoning the delay, it has been stated that the assessee had filed an appeal and the present appeal may be connected with the appeal filed by the assessee. The Department could have filed cross-objections also within the time stipulated but that was not done. 18. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, there is no good reason to condone the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
