TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no reason for the appellant in delay of filing of the appeal, as the appellant had been granted unconditional stay in respect of the appeal against the order-in-original dated 8.8.2012 and because of the delay in filing of the appeal against the order-in-original dated 26.08.2013, they had to pay mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5 % under the amended provisions of Section 35 F. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the appellant's employees - Decision in the case of N. Balakrishnan (1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would be applicable - Delay condoned. - E/COD/55474/2014, Appeal No.E /54797/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order had been received, the Asstt . Manager (Commercial), Shri R.P. Gupta , who was handling the Indirect Taxation matters, had resigned from the services and he was replaced by a new person, Shri Sandeep Berry, that Shri Sandeep Berry was to take the necessary action for filing the appeal in consultation with Ms. Shruti Kakkar , Legal Manager of the Company at the Company's Head Office at Gurgaon, that due to some misunderstanding, the required action for filing of the appeal was not be taken, as the order-in-original dated 26.08.2013 was mis -taken as a show cause notice, that the appellant realized the mistake of non-filing of the appeal only when the recovery proceedings were initiated by the Department against them, that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment for such tasks and hence, when admittedly, the delay is due to mistake on their part, there is no reason to condone the delay. He also cited the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Rasi Tex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE , Salem reported in 2014 (309) ELT 295 (Tribunal-Chennai), wherein in similar circumstance, the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The undisputed facts are that prior to the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 the Commissioner had passed an order dated 8.8.2012 involving identical issue and in respect of that order an appeal had been filed by the appellant and the Tribunal had granted unconditional waiver from the requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
