Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 605 - HC - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Held that:- The facts culled down from the affidavit filed in support of the petition would go to show that the final order was passed by the CESTAT as early as on 14-6-2007. The said order was directly despatched to the office of the Chief Commissioner, who admittedly received it on 27-6-2007. The appeal should have been filed within a period of 180 days from 27-6-2007, i.e., on 27-12-2007. But, such an appeal was filed only on 4-2-2008. The delay between 27-12-2007 and 4-2-2008 is sought to be explained on the ground that the true copy of the order of the CESTAT has not been forwarded to the Commissionerate directly. However, there is no explanation as to why the appeal could not be preferred within the period of limitation, when admittedly the copy of the order, which was directly sent to the Chief Commissioner’s office and which was received on 27-6-2007. Even if the said explanation is accepted, there is no explanation for the subsequent periods. - Condonation denied. Demand - Intention to evade - Penalty - Held that:- The imposition of penalty is neither automatic nor could be mechanical, as, for such order imposing penalty, the basic requirement of suppression, wilful misappropriation or fraud must be shown. The CESTAT factually found that there has been no suppression, wilful misappropriation or fraud on the part of the first respondent-assessee. This being a factual finding not concerning with any law, much less substantial question of law - Decided against Revenue.
|