TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, the Tribunal, has been vested with the power to condone the delay, if, sufficient cause is shown. The appellant, in the given circumstances, cannot be put to prejudice, because of the lack of professionalism of the Advocate engaged by it. Delay condoned - order of Tribunal set aside - application for COD allowed in favor of applicant. - C.M.A.No.1466 of 2017, C.M.P.No.7811 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.T.Chezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher,J. ) 1.This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal. 4.2.The order in appeal, however, as is evident from the record, was despatched to the appellant on 22.06.2016. 5.The appellant claims that the order-in-appeal was received by it, on 26.06.2016. 5.1.It is further claimed by the appellant, that an additional amount was deposited on 16.12.2016, towards duty being 2.5% of the duty demanded. 5.2.It is the stand of the appellant that thereafter, an appeal was lodged with the Tribunal, on 19.12.2016. It is not disputed by the appellant that, if, the date of receipt of the order-in-appeal, is taken into account, then, the appeal with the Tribunal ought to have been lodged on or before 26.09.2016. 5.3.The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there was a delay in pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the Tribunal, has been vested with the power to condone the delay, if, sufficient cause is shown. 9.2.Pertinently, sub-section (5) of Section 129 A of the Act, does not provide for an outer limit. 10.As would be evident, from the narration of facts, set out above, since the order-in-appeal, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), had been received by the appellant on 26.06.2016, the appeal had to be filed, by the appellant herein, on or before 26.09.2016. 10.1.The appeal, in fact, had been filed on 19.12.2016. There was a delay of over three months, in filing the appeal. That being said, the appellant had given reasons for seeking condonation of delay. 10.2.A perusal of paragraph no.2 of the application for condonation of delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
