2014 (3) TMI 753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the contention, the Ld. Advocate had submitted the affidavit of the applicant/appellant and a supplementary affidavit filed by them alongwith the affidavit filed by Shri Ajit Roy, looking after the tax matters of the Engineering Divn. of the applicant. The Ld. Advocate submitted that order dated-April 12, 2012 passed by the Commr. Central Excise (Appeals-I) confirmed the demand of Central duty of Rs.12,23,369/- alongwith interest and equivalent penalty was imposed on April 17, 2012 on the applicant/ appellant and handed over to Mr. Ajit Roy, employee. The contract period of Shri Roy came to an end on April 30, 2012 and he was also suffering from many ailments and therefore the appellants advised him to hand over all the papers to the Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Ld. A.R. for Revenue submitted that almost six months i.e. from October, 2012 to June 10, 2013 were consumed in locating the papers which shows the negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant. from which he cited the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Office of the Post Master General General Vs. Living Media India Ltd.-2012 (277) ELT 289 (SC), wherein the affidavits were submitted explaining the delay, the Hon'ble Court observed that:-         12. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... addressed even any letter to the Department to hand over a copy of the order-in-Appeal. I do not find that the reasons given for the delay in this case are the sufficient cause. Though delay is stated to be due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the appellant did not show a diligence and commitment in prosecuting the matter in time. In these circumstances and keeping in view the Apex Court's judgement in case of Living Media India Ltd. (supra). I find that there is no sufficient cause explained by the applicant/appellant warranting condonation of delay. 6. In view of the above mentioned facts, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not been able to show that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X