9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues Involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal u/s Section 86(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summary: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dealt with an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal by a Public Sector Undertaking. The appellant sought condonation of a delay of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time in filing their appeal. Despite notice, there was no representation for the appellant, and no request for adjournment was made. The appellant had previously proposed to file an application under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, but failed to do so. The Tribunal was inclined to dispose of the application due to lack of documents from the appellant. The impugned order was received by the appellant on 14/01/2011, and an appeal should have been filed within three months from that date u/s Section 86(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the appeal was filed on 01/12/2011 with a delay of around 225 days. The appellant failed to explain the actual delay and only sought to explain the delay of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. The appellant claimed to have filed an application under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 seeking rectification, but failed to produce the relevant documents. The Tribunal noted that the delay of around 225 days remained unexplained and dismissed the condonation application and the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal did not allow the condonation application for several reasons: (a) The appellant did not explain the delay in excess of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. (b) The appellant filed the Section 74 application long after the statutory period of limitation ran out, indicating a lack of bona fides. (c) The appellant's claim of awaiting results from the Section 74 application was deemed unreasonable as the impugned order advised them to appeal within 3 months. (d) The proceedings under Section 74 could have been resumed while the appeal was pending, and the delay in filing the appeal could not be justified by the Section 74 proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the unexplained delay of around 225 days and the lack of justification for the delay provided by the appellant.
|
