9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m have stated on oath that the first time the management became aware of the existence of the Order-in-Original was somewhere in and around November, 2007 and after pursuing with the department, the applicant company was served with a copy of order on 5-2-2008 – delay condoned. - ST/46/2008 - 80/2009 - Dated:- 19-2-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mrs. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This application is for condonation of delay is filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 214 days. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for appellants submits the date chart and events to draw o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mrs. Florence Germain, Director of the appellant company to the Commissioner of Service Tax. 23-1-2008 11. Letter from Department vide letter in- C. No. IV/16/38/2008 ARC from the recovery cell directing the appellant to pay dues, immediately. 1-2-2008 12. Date on which copy of the Order-in-Original received from the office of the Assistant Commissioner. 5-2-2008 13. Date of filing the appeal 19-2-2008 2.1 He would submit that the Order-in-Original was received by the Manager-Administration who was dealing with the case but never brought this to the notice of the management. He would submit that first time the management was aware of the Order-in-Original was in November 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 (Tri.-Bang.). 4. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides on the issue and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the Order-in-Original dated 27-3-2007 was received by the appellant company's representative on 29-3-2007. It is the claim of the applicant company that the said Order-in-Original dated 27-3-2007 was not placed before the management by the concerned employee. We find that three responsible employees of the company i.e., Manager - Marketing/Product Development, Manager - Administration and Human Resources (HR) and Accounts Executive have filed sworn affidavit that the then Manager Administration has received the Order-in-Original dated 27-3-2007 but did not place the same before Manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) will be applicable in the case before us. We may reproduce the same. "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiable liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have perco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
