9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves can be disposed of at this stage. After disposing the stay petitions and with the consent of both sides, I take up the appeals themselves for consideration and disposal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellant not given justifiable reason for belatedly filing of appeal by 23 days and he would draw my attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority. It is his submissions that the appellant in first round of litigation sought for some documents, which was not given to them and this Bench vide Final Order No. A/2268-2270/WZB/AHD/2011 dated 20.12.2011 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant on merits. It is also his submission that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jewel International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodhpur 2009 (247) ELT 204 (Tri-Del) has held that though the action of the assessee reveals questionable modus operandi, the assessee shall suffer if their application is thrown out at threshold without granting an opportunity of hearing the matter, hence delay be condoned. It is his submission that the appellants case in this matter is directly covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, would draw my attention to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority for not condoning the delay of 23 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the department. The department complied with the order of the Tribunal and furnished copies of documents to the appellants as early as on 12.1.2012. As such the appellants should have filed reply within two weeks after receiving the copies of documents. They failed not only to file reply but did not co-operate with the adjudicating authority in complying with the directions of the Tribunal. The applicants contentions cannot be entertained, because the delay in adjudication is only due the fact that they had failed to comply with the condition set by the Tribunal by not filing reply within the stipulated time of two weeks. I view the case as deliberate attempt by the appellants to delay the matters and forestall the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tipulated period, is misconceived and incorrect. To my mind, it is totally unacceptable reason for condonation of delay. However, any delay would be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach, rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause; it cannot attributed to the adjudicating authority atleast in this case. Since no other valid reason or justifiable cause was propagated by the appellant before the first appellate authority, I am of the view that the first appellate authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that appellant had not justified the belated filing of appeal before him. 7. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any reason for interfering with the order passed by the first appellate authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
