TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till passing of the impugned Order - reliance placed on the decision of the case Navbharat Enterprises Ltd vs CC (Import) [2015 (3) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that if there was doubt and which could be inferred from the records and information provided to the Assessee by the Revenue after he invoked the Right to Information Act 2005 then, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and in all fairness and in the interest of justice. Eventually if the Assessee cannot be faulted or being negligent or reckless in pursuing the remedy, then, the delay could have been condoned by compensation of payment of costs. Condonation of delay allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 5,000/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of cigarettes in a godown in Bandra, and thereby aiding and abetting his son Shri Nitesh A. Sadarangani. He was not expecting any adjudication proceedings against him. Immediately upon gathering knowledge about imposition of penalty upon him on the basis of the copy of impugned Order supplied to his son, the applicant preferred the instant appeal along with connected applications. An attested copy of the impugned Order dated 31.1.2002 was obtained from the Department on 20.11.2013 and submitted to the registry to remove the defect. 4. Learned Senior Advocate fairly referred to the Order dated 21.12.2012 reported in 2013 (296) ELT 256 (T) passed by this Tribunal while rejecting an appeal filed by his son Shri Nitesh Sadarangani, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in personal hearing, however, there is not even any reference to any proof of service of show cause notice or personal hearing intimation or affixation thereof on notice board. Moreover, whereas no application for condonation of delay was filed by Nitesh Sadarangani, the applicant by way of abundant caution has filed the instant application for condonation of delay. Despite repeated opportunities and directions given, the Department has failed to produce any proof of service or even proof of displaying the show cause notice, personal hearing intimation and the Order-in-Original on notice board. Only an office note could be produced to show intent of displaying the Order-in-Original on Notice Board. He submitted that the appellant was una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the applicant's son on the ground of time bar, however, in light of the above facts it was contended that if the delay is to be condoned, cost should be imposed as was done in the matter of Navbharat Enterprises Ltd (supra) by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 6. We have carefully perused records and considered the submission made before us. that admittedly the Show Cause notice dated 5.4.2001, or the personal hearing intimations the impugned Order-in-Original Ct. 31.1.2002 could not be served or brought to the knowledge of the Appellant despite efforts made by the department. It is also a matter of record that the department found that the appellant and his son had left the premises mentioned in the Show Cause Notice o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Navbharat Enterprises Ltd (supra) observed that- 7 . Even the Tribunal, therefore, does not refer to the delay of more than 12 years and as claimed by the Revenue. It refers to the period of delay as of 266 days. That it relies on the fact that even after obtaining the information and receiving the copy of the adjudication order, the Assessee failed to file the Appeal in time. Thus, this delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 8. We are of the opinion that if there was doubt and which could be inferred from the records and information provided to the Assessee by the Revenue after he invoked the Right to Information Act 2005 then, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
