Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Ashish Kumar Ganguli, Abhijit Sen Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Indore

2015 (11) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Condonation of delay - Delay of 45 days - Held that:- Appellants have filed appeals before this Tribunal within 135 day i.e. 45 days after 90 days. The reason for causing further delay has been explained by the ld. Counsel that the Director of the Company told them that they are preferring appeals against the order of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court in their case. As the reasons for causing delay has not been explained satisfactorily with any cogent evidence but having a cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

15 & E/52402/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 18-8-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Priyanka Goel, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals along with applications for condonation of delay. 2. To entertain the appeals, first, we have dealt with the applications for condonation of delay whether the delay can be condoned or not. 3. In this case, initially the show cause notices were issued to the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s Tribunal, therefore, they are not entertaining the writ petition filed by the appellants. It is the contention of the appellants that they have received the order of the Hon'ble High Court only on 12.02.15, thereafter they have filed appeals before this Tribunal only on 26.06.2015. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that initially there is a delay of 410 days from the date of passing the impugned order but the impugned order was received by them only on 10.01.2014 and thereafter they sought advice fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n - 2015-TIOL-909-CESTAT-Mum and in the case of Mehul Jhaveri V. CC, CSI Airport, Mumbai reported in 2013 (288) ELT 301 (Tribunal-Mumbai), the limitation period shall start only from 12.02.2015 and thereafter, they have filed appeals with a delay of 45 days. She, further, pleaded that the delay caused by them due to advice given by the Director and further advised that the co-appellate company is preferring an appeal against the order of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder, the appellant did not prefer appeals before this Tribunal despite the preamble of the impugned order clearly mentioned that if the appellant wish to file appeal, that appeal is to be filed before this Tribunal within 90 days, which the appellants failed to do so but preferred writ petition on the advice of their Director before the Hon'ble High Court that too after more than 4 months i.e. on 30.05.2014. We also observed that before the Hon'ble High Court also, the appellant did not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version