9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. - This Miscellaneous Application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing of appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax vide Order-in-Original No.71/2007 dated 10-7-2007 filed by M/s. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. (applicant). 2. We heard both sides. 3. The learned advocate informed the Bench that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e length of delay is not relevant and acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. 3.1 The learned advocate narrated the circumstance under which the delay was caused. He stated that the impugned order was received by one Shri Naveen Nyayapathy who was an ex-employee of the appellant. He left the service without bringing to the notice of the appellant the receipt of the impugned order. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h cases, the Tribunal accepted the said explanation as sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and the said delay was condoned. 3.2 Further, the learned advocate for the appellant stated that even on merits the appellants do have a strong case. He invited our attention to the Circular issued by the Board No.108/02/2009-S.T., dated 29-1-2009 wherein it has been held that builders/developers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation given by the appellant for condonation of the delay. Further, he relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Delhi- IV v. Escorts Limited - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 345 (P & H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court did not condone the delay of 1461 days on the ground that gross negligence, casualness, laxity and negligence are not sufficient cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
