9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r The RESPONDENT : SC FOR RESPONDENT- SRI. SREELAL N.WARRIER JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J: Heard; counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Assailing an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin dated 10-04-2013, fixing service tax liability on the appellant for the period from 01-04-2007 to 30-06- 2010 along with penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant submitted before the Tribunal that the delay was occurred only because of some communication gap between the appellant and the consultant, who was handling the case earlier. According to the appellant, he was under the impression that the consultant will take necessary steps to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority. But the consultant was under the impression that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, even in cases where the Tribunal was not fully convinced with respect to the cause of delay, it ought to have taken a lenient view, considering the larger interest involved and also taking note of the settled legal principle that all causes should be decided on merit to the extent possible, rather than dismissing them on technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal had also failed in considering the question of condoning the delay by compensating the respondent in terms of cost. Taking note of the larger interest involved and on the basis of the settled legal principle we are of the considered opinion that the delay caused ought to have been condoned by compensating the respondent in terms of cost. Therefore the question of law is decided in favour of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
