9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant appeal is directed against the order 27.9.2012 passed by the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short), by which the appeal of the assessee-appellant was not admitted and was rejected on the premise that the same was delayed by 146 days. 2. The brief facts noticed are that the assessee appellant is said to be commission agent and is providing services on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against Rs. 70,300/- assessed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Since the appeal was filed with delay, the Tribunal rejected the aforesaid appeal holding the appeal to be invalid. 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the appeal in the manner in the present facts and circumstances. Admittedly the application for condonation of delay was there with delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revenue strongly objected to the appeal and contended that there was no reason of delay on the part of the assessee and merely to support the contention a medical certificate was filed. He contended that delay having not been satisfactorily proved the Tribunal was just and proper in rejecting the appeal. 7. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In our view the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal has become rather harsh in rejecting the appeal of the appellant which in the facts and circumstances of the case was not required to be rejected on this premise. A litigant who suffers would normally avail the remedy available under the law within the limitation period as it is he who is the ultimate sufferer because in the instant case, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
