TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the C.O.D immediately after 30.04.2007. Even after the appellant was made aware of the requirement by 30.09.2010 by the Tribunal, no application was made by him before the C.O.D. In other words, there was never any effort made by the appellant in seriously desiring to prosecute the appeal against the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner. These factors were taken into consideration by the Tribunal while refusing to recall the order dated 30.09.2010. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal to interfere with. Even assuming for arguments sake, it is only on account of the law declared by the Apex Court in Electronics Corp. of India v. Union of India & Ors (2011 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court), dispensin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India v. Union of India Ors. and gave liberty to the Department to seek revival of the appeal after obtaining necessary sanction from the C.O.D., whereas, the assessees appeal was allowed by the Tribunal on 30.09.2010. Thereafter, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Application which is numbered as M.A. No. 86/Hyd/2014 on 24.01.2014 seeking to recall the order dated 30.09.2010 made in I.T.A.No. 793/HYD/2007 and the Tribunal dismissed it by order dated 13.08.2014. Questioning this order, the present appeal is filed raising the following substantial question of law said to be arising from the order of the Tribunal for adjudication: In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Honble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent Miscellaneous Application came to be filed by the appellant on noticing the judgment dated 17.02.2011 of the Apex Court (supra) wherein the Apex Court had recalled its earlier order seeking clearance from the C.O.D. and thereby giving liberty to all the Government Departments to approach the higher forums and exercise the right of appeal in accordance with the respective statues. Though this judgment is dated 17.02.2011, the application seeking to recall the order of the Tribunal in terms of the liberty given to the appellant in the order dated 30.09.2010 came to be filed only in the month of January 2014 i.e. after a substantial lapse of the period of three years. In other words, there is a total lapse on the part of the appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
