Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 387 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 387 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - 2016 (44) S.T.R. 382 (A. P.) - Condonation of delay - jurisdiction of the CESTAT against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - failure to file the appeal within time was because of the illness of their Managing Director - Held that: - The medical certificate, as produced, was issued by Ms.Uma Rani whose qualification, as recorded in the certificate itself, is M.B.B.S, D.G.O. The Managing Director of the appellant did not suffer from any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from 01.07.2013 till 23.02.2014, are even referred to in the said certificate. - no reason found to exercise jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Act to interfere with the order under appeal. - Delay not condoned - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - C.E.A. No. 13 of 2016 - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - Ramesh Ranganathan And M. Satyanarayana Murthy, JJ. JUDGMENT ( Per Hon ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan ) This appeal is preferred, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 contending that their failure to file the appeal within time was because of the illness of their Managing Director. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal observed that the question was whether the Managing Director, who was said not to be maintaining good health, was handling the affairs of the Company; the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the Managing Director was not regularly visiting the factory but was managing the day to day affairs of the company on an irregular .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ealth of the Managing Director was only an excuse. On the ground that the delay could not be condoned on flimsy grounds, and there must be sufficient cause for the delay of 218 days, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It is evident from the order of the Tribunal that the order under challenge before the Tribunal was received not by the Managing Director but by the Cost Accountant of the appellant Company. It is also clear that the Managing Director was not even visiting the factory and it was th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e limitation prescribed for preferring the appeal is 90 days; the 90 days period ended only on 20.07.2013; even prior thereto, the Managing Director of the appellant was ill from 01.07.2013; and the order under challenge suffers from perversity, as the Tribunal failed to note that the medical certificate shows that the Managing Director of the appellant- Company was undergoing treatment for Hypertensive Heart Disease, and not merely Hypertension. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the ord .....

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