TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and Tribunal generally adopt a liberal approach and the expression, 'sufficient cause' is construed rather generously so as to advance substantial justice. However, the cause ascribed by a litigant must relate to the events which transpired in proximity to the passing of the order sought to be assailed. In the case at hand, the principal reason assigned for not filing the appeal is the death of one of the Partners of the petitioner No.1 firm. The said event occurred in the year 2010. The death of the partner of the petitioner No.1 occurred even before passing of the order in original. Since the order sought to be impugned before the Tribunal, was passed on 30th November 2016, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against an order dated 30th November 2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax-II, Mumbai came to be dismissed. 2. The background facts leading to this petition can be summarized as under : A show-cause notice dated 20th October 2009 came to be served upon the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why service tax amounting to ₹ 20,57,067/should not be recovered under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, along with interest and penalties prescribed therein. After consideration of the reply filed by the petitioners and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, an order in original came to be passed on 12th January 2012. The petitioners received a copy of the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, in support of the application for condonation of delay, we found that the petitioner No.2 affirmed that one of the partners of the firm, viz., Vitthal J. Savani died in the year 2010, and, thus, the firm stood dissolved and on account of the old age and ill health of the deponent Shantilal J. Savani, he could not attend to the pending affairs of the petitioner-firm and, therefore, the delay. The learned Member of the Tribunal was not persuaded to accept the aforesaid reason as the justifiable cause for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. It noted that the partner of the firm had expired 8 years prior to the presentation of the application for condonation of delay and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the order sought to be impugned before the Tribunal, was passed on 30th November 2016, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay on account of a cause which had no causal connection with the period in question. If the said cause is discounted, then it seems to be a case of no specific and bonafide explanation relatable to the period of delay. The material on record, on the contrary, indicates that the petitioners have not been diligent in pursuing the remedies as the delay occurred in preferring the appeal against the order in original before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also in assailing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal. 9. In this view of the matter, we are persuaded to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
