TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should evince bona fides and should be sufficient to warrant condonation of delay in filing the appeal. - delay need not be explained mechanically but the reasons advanced for the delay should reflect bona fides, perhaps the learned Tribunal would have taken note of the consequences of usurpation of an office and consequential misplacement of records and files, and found the reasons acceptable, had it not considered the conduct of the appellant within the period of limitation - tribunal directed to consider the application for condonation of delay afresh - Decided in favour of assessee. - CEXA No. 10 of 2013, GA No. 1673 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2013 - Indira Banerjee and Anindita Roy Saraswati, JJ. Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Shekhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he show cause notice culminated in an Order-in-Origina1 No. 27/CH-48/Commisioner/CE/Cal-II/Adjn/98, dated 29-5-1998 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Commissionerate. The proceedings were dropped. 7. However, another proceeding was issued in respect of goods cleared during the period from August, 1997 to December, 2000 and April, 2001 to June, 2001. 8. By an Order-in-Original No. 05/Addl.Commr./CE/Haldia/Adjn./ 2007-08, dated May 31, 2007, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty of equivalent amount. 9. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Kolkata, against the aforesaid Order-in-Original dated May 31, 2007. The appellant also made an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal had been dismissed. 13. The appeal was admitted on the questions of law framed by this Court by its order dated July 22, 2013. One of the questions formulated was whether the learned Tribunal could have, in an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, taken note of what transpired between the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be appealed against and the last date of limitation. Put differently the question was whether an applicant for condonation of delay was liable to explain what steps were taken between the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the last date of limitation notwithstanding the plethora of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as this Court which require an applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. 17. The learned Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay since it found that neither in the affidavit nor in the application could the appellant explain the steps initiated by the applicant between October 29, 2009 and 1st week of April, 2010. 18. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no explanation of the steps initiated by the applicant between 29th October, 2009 and 1st week of April, 2010. The applicant was required to explain the delay from 29th January, 2010 onwards and not from 29th October, 2009 onwards. The unexplained delay, if any, was between October 29, 2009 and 1st week of April 2010. 19. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore lenient approach and looked into the prima facie, merits, if any, of the appeal. The appellants have been contending that a similar appeal had earlier been allowed. It has been submitted that proceedings initiated pursuant to show cause notice demanding ₹ 39,52,457/- was dropped by an Order-in-Original No. 27/CH-48/Commissioner/CE/Cal-11/Adjn/98, dated 29-5-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and quashed for the reasons discussed above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 23. The learned Tribunal is directed to consider the application for condonation of delay afresh in the light of the observations made above expeditiously preferab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
