9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates, for the Appearing Parties. ORDER The Court : This appeal is directed against Order No. M-675/S- 1563/A-867/Kol/2012 in MA-263/2011 & SP-829/2011 & Ex. Appeal No. 708/2011, dated December 7, 2012, whereby the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal being Appeal No. 70 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Without going into technicalities, we deem it appropriate to consider the legality of the order impugned on its merits. There was apparently a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant submitted that the impugned order in appeal was received on February 22, 2011 by one of the security staff. The representative of the department, however, produced a copy of the ackno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each day's delay. The delay is to be explained in substance. In the instant case for a trivial discrepancy of only 7 days where the delay was of 73 days, the learned Tribunal has not considered the explanation of the petitioner for the delay at all. 6. The learned Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the appellant was required to explain the delay from the last date of limitation till the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has only to show that, there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last day of limitation and thereafter explain the delay. The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. 7. The learned Tribunal shall consider the application for condonation of delay afresh in the light of the observations made above. 8. Urgent certified copy of this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
