TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot attributed to the adjudicating authority - no other valid reason or justifiable cause was propagated by the appellant before the first appellate authority – thus, the first appellate authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that appellant had not justified the belated filing of appeal before him – Decided against Assessee. - Appeal No. : E/12053 to 12055/2013-SM - - - Dated:- 18-10-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, J. For the Appellant: Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri J. Nair, AR JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindaran; These applications are filed for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts of duty liability confirmed against the main appellant and penalty on the main appellant as well as on other app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO -2005 (183) ELT 337 (SC) and submits that the length of delay is immaterial but its shortness is a circumstance in exercise of discretion by Court. It is his submission that the said decision of the Hon ble Apex Court would cover the issue in condonation of delay and first appellate authority should have condoned the delay. It is also his submission that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Gosson Air Conditioning Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh- 2006 (205) ELT 44 (P H) has held that request for condonation of delay should be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach, rather than the techn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case before him. The said order of the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to furnish a copy of the relied upon documents to the appellant within a period of two weeks, which was complied to by the adjudicating authority and the copies were given to the appellant on 12.1.2012. As per the order of the Tribunal, the appellants were to be heard and the order was to be passed within three months from that date. I find that the first appellate authority in his Order-in-Appeal in para 8 has recorded the following for not accepting the cause given by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay: - 8. While the Tribunal had fixed the time of three months for the adjudication by the original authority, the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order by March, 2012, however the department issued the order by the end of May, 2012. Accordingly, the appellants believed that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was not legal and proper and beyond the directive of CESTAT. On seeking legal advice they were informed that the appeal is required to be filed and the appellants immediately made arrangement to file the appeals. 6.3 It can be seen from the records and findings of the first appellate authority that the reasons given by the appellants for condonation of delay are totally unacceptable, inasmuch as having delayed the proceedings before the adjudicating authority and subsequently stating that on receipt of such adjudication order they were under bona fide belief that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
