TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, filed an application praying for condonation of delay before Commissioner (Appeals) and order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in respect of the said application praying for condonation of delay. In view of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, delay was not condoned. As a result where of the appeal could not have sustained. In the present case, Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order of confirming any demand against the dead person. The Order was squarely on the ground of limitation. The same has been upheld by this Tribunal only because of the statutory mandate upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to not to condone the delay beyond three months. Application dismissed. - Service Tax ROM Application No.51231 of 2018, 51230 of 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that it was specifically mentioned before this Tribunal at the time of the impugned final order which is prayed to be rectified that the appellant was the proprietorship firm of Mr.D.A.Khan, who died during the pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). This fact was also brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) by wife of deceased vide her letter dated 18.09.2017 enclosing the death certificate of Mr. D.A. Khan. The said fact has even been recorded in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), but the same has neither been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) nor by this Tribunal. Alleging the same to be an error apparent on record that the final order is prayed to be recalled and the application is prayed to be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Enterprises (supra) case the Hon ble Apex Court has clarified as follows:- 10.Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered opinion that once the factum of death of sole proprietor has come to the knowledge of ld. Commissioner, the ld. Commissioner should have dropped the proceedings rather than passing the impugned order. But he chose to pass the impugned order against the dead person, which is not sustainable in law. 5. In the present case, Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order of confirming any demand against the dead person. The Order was squarely on the ground of limitation. The same has been upheld by this Tribunal only because of the statutory mandate upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to not to condone the delay beyond three months. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. As a result, both these applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|