Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Shagun Processors Pvt Ltd And Shri Amit Sant Maggu Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Surat-I

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - Held that:- It is seen from the order dated 06.07.2010 of the Tribunal that the matter was adjourned in several occasions at the request of the appellant and nobody turned up on behalf of the appellant. It is noted that in the month of July 2012, the appellant received the copy of the order of the Tribunal from the Registry, but, no application was filed by the applicant till 23.01.2015. It is noted that the appellant is a private li .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he submission of the Learned Advocate on merit. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to recall the order dated 06.07.2010 - Restoration denied. - Application No.: E/COD/10107, 10109/2015, E/ROA/10106, 10108/2015 In Appeal No.: E/1783-1784/2003 - Order No. M/11340-11343/2015 - Dated:- 10-11-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M, Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Ashok Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Repre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

217 (Bom.) observed that the period for filing the application for restoration of appeal is 3 months as per the provisions of filing of the appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the applicants filed these ROA on 23.01.2015. So, they have filed COD applications for condonation of delay of ROAs. He drew the attention of the Bench, the relevant portion of the applications explaining the reason for delay. On merit, the Learned Advocate submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice Tax 2011 (269) E.L.T. 491 (Guj.) 3. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue strongly opposed these applications. He submits that they have not explained any reason for delay of filing application. The Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of L. J. Synthetics Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-I 2011 (270) E.L.T. 507 (Guj.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, as the application for restoration of appeal was filed after 7 years. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oceeding in terms of the final order of the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Tribunal by order dated 06.07.2010 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, we reproduce the relevant portion of the said order:- On matter being called neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request. We note from records that the matter has been coming up on board repeatedly and was being adjourn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/1892-1893/WZB/AHD/2008. However at the request of the appellant the same were subsequently restored on 10.02.09 and fixed for hearing on 08.04.09. 2. There after the matter has come on board number of times. Every time it was being adjourned with a warning to the appellant that no further adjournment would be granted. The appellants are absent again today. We find no reasons to keep the appeals on board. The history, as detailed above, reflect upon the appellants intentions not to pursue the m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ondonation of delay of fling ROA application. The relevant portion of the COD application is reproduced below:- 8. The applicant submits that neither the Appellant nor the counsel for the Applicant was aware about the order passed on 06.07.2010. 9. The appellant submits that on around, July 2012 director of the appellant visited the registry of the Tribunal to ascertain the status of the case as neither the counsel nor the appellant received any further hearing notice nor any order after 06.07.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

depression due to loss of the business and various liabilities that has incurred and director was under medication and has been taking treatment for such depression. 6. We find that the appeal was filed in 2003. It is seen from the order dated 06.07.2010 of the Tribunal that the matter was adjourned in several occasions at the request of the appellant and nobody turned up on behalf of the appellant. It is noted that in the month of July 2012, the appellant received the copy of the order of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation of the appeals. The said applications came to be dismissed by the Tribunal observing that as regards huge gap of seven years in filing the restoration applications, the learned advocate had simply stated that the sole owner of the unit was unwell and was unable to conduct the affairs of the manufacturing unit in the usual manner. The Tribunal found that apart from the said bald statement made in the applications, there was nothing to reflect on the difficulties faced by the appellants in p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of the appellants and accordingly, held that delay of a huge period of seven years cannot be condoned and rejected the applications on the ground of laches on part of the appellants. 13. Insofar as the order dated 17th June, 2009 is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact to the effect that the only ground stated in relation to the delay of seven years caused in making the applications for restoration was that the sole owner of the unit was unwell and was unable to conduct the af .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

caused in the filing of the restoration applications. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 17th June 2009 made by the Tribunal rejecting the applications for restoration on the ground of laches on the part of the appellants, cannot be stated to suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. In the present applications, the Director of the company was unwell, which cannot be sufficient for condonation of delay of about 6 years. Hence, we do not find any merit in the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution and if the appellants would file application for restoration of appeal, it may be decided on merit. But, in the present case, we find that there is long delay of about 6 years for filing application of ROA. It is seen from the Letter dated 04.09.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Surat-II, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (Review) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Surat-II that in view of the fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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