9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by counsel for the Revenue since on merits the issue stands decided against it. The appeal is also patently time barred and there is no ground to condone the delay in refiling since initially it was filed by a separate counsel way back on 27.06.2015 and had been returned with objections on 10.07.2015. The appeal was re-filed on 18.02.2016 by the earlier counsel and had been returned on 28.03.2016 and re-filed on 11.04.2016. The same was returned on 04.06.2016 to the said counsel which had been re-filed on 09.06.2016 and had been returned on 08.08.2016. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been mentioned that the earlier counsel did not return the original set of documents by saying that the original file has been misplaced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure P-4) proposing denial of cenvat credit. It was noticed that identical issues stood decided by the Tribunal in number of decisions and, therefore, since the law was declared subsequently, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant for the purposes of alleging suppression and for invoking the longer period of limitation. On merits, it was noticed that a larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2010 (253) 440 had held that no cenvat credit would be available in respect of various iron and steel items which had been used for supporting the structures. 3. It has been brought to our notice that the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal stands reversed by the Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no ground to condone the delay in refiling since initially it was filed by a separate counsel way back on 27.06.2015 and had been returned with objections on 10.07.2015. The appeal was re-filed on 18.02.2016 by the earlier counsel and had been returned on 28.03.2016 and re-filed on 11.04.2016. The same was returned on 04.06.2016 to the said counsel which had been re-filed on 09.06.2016 and had been returned on 08.08.2016. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been mentioned that the earlier counsel did not return the original set of documents by saying that the original file has been misplaced and is not traceable and he is no longer on the panel. However, the fact remains that after the returning of the appeal in Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax after the expiry of prescribed period of time that no case is filed against him by his opponent but these days, there is a growing tendency to file incomplete cases and then take unreasonably long time to remove the defects, even where such defects can be cured within a very short time. For example, in the present case, once the Registry had raised the objection that there is a delay of 45 days in filing of the appeal, the applicant should have filed the application for condonation of delay or should have at least explained it while removing the objection that how the application is within limitation. As a matter of fact, the applicant simply removed the objection of delay by writing one line that it is within limitation. Secondly, the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
