9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person incharge of Excise was ill and had been under treatment in hospital during the period when the appeal could have been filed without delay. This claim has been canvassed on the strength of a discharge summary of the hospital concerned. The appeal is allowed and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. - E/926/2006 - 1361/2008 - Dated:- 2-12-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The impugned order rejected an appeal filed by M/s. ARK Enterprises, Salem on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of 16 days. The appellants had not been able to convince Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject case. Though he observed that an application for condonation of delay in filing an. appeal should receive a liberal consideration and such applications disposed in a meaningful manner to subserve the ends of justice, he found that in the absence of details of chronological events leading to the delay he had no option except to find the delay as due to negligence on the part of the appellant. He also found that the date of admission of the person responsible to file the appeal in the hospital was entered as 14-7-2006 and the date of discharge as 17-6-2006 in the 'Discharge Summary' issued by the hospital where the Excise incharge had received in-patient treatment. On this reasoning the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. 2. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the delay of 16 days. The appellants canvassed condonation of delay on the ground that the Excise in charge of the appellant-company had fallen sick on 14-7-2006 and had been hospitalized. The concerned person was discharged from hospital on 17-7-2006 and the appeal filed on 31-7-2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not satisfied that there was sufficient cause which prevented the appellants from filing the appeal in time before him. He suspected the genuineness of the claims made by the appellants as also the 'Discharge Summary' of the hospital which showed the history of in-patient treatment of the Excise incharge who should have filed the appeal. The fact that the concerned person had fallen ill just two days before normal period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t held that when technicality and substantial justice were pitted against each other the Court would always lean in favour of substantial justice. In the instant case the appeal was filed with delay of 16 days beyond 60 days period prescribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to condone this delay on sufficient case being shown. The appellant claimed that the person incharge of Excise was ill and had been under treatment in hospital during the period when the appeal could have been filed without delay. This claim has been canvassed on the strength of a discharge summary of the hospital concerned. The Commissioner (Appeals) suspected the genuineness of this document and refused to condone the delay. From the totality of the circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
