TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and refused to condone 427 days delay in filing of the appeal by the Postal Department. In this case for delay of about three months from 04/08/13 to end of October, 2013 there is absolutely no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed during this period. The conduct of the appellant indicates as if filing of appeal before the Tribunal was the last priority - the delay in filing of appeal is not condonable - Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Misc. Application No. 54597 of 2014 and 55382 of 2014 with COD Application No. 54596 of 2014 and Stay Application No. 54595 of 2014 Appeal No. 54054 of 2014 - Final Order No. 54146/2014 - Dated:- 30-9-2014 - HON'BLE MS. ARCH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-original dated 30th July, 2013 had been received by the appellant, a proprietorship concern of Shri R.P. Pandhi, on 04/08/13, the appeal could be filed only on 25/07/14, as a result of which there is a delay of 262 days, that after receipt of the order-in-original dated 30/07/13 on 04/08/13, the appellant were able to collect all the documents in respect of this case and send the same to their Consultant Shri Vinod Jain at Panchkula by 3rd week of October, 2013, that sometime in November, 2013, the elder brother of the Proprietor of the appellant firm became sick and was suffering from several major ailments and Shri R.P. Pandhi of the appellant firm was busy in taking care of his elder brother as there was nobody to look after him, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsultant only in 3rd week of October, 2013 and as such, there is no explanation for about 70 day s delay in handing over the papers to the consultant, that even when there was no response from the consultant, the appellant did not make any alternate arrangement and there is no explanation as to why till November 2013 even one month after handing over of the case papers to the Consultant, when there was no response from the Consultant, no action for alternate arrangement was taken, that for condoning delay, every day s delay has to be explained and in this case there is no explanation of delay of more than three months from 4th August, 2013 till November, 2013, that in terms of Apex Court s judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Kri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndoning the delay, the length of delay is not relevant and what is relevant is the acceptability of the explanation for delay. The Apex Court in another case of Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. (supra) has held that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and refused to condone 427 days delay in filing of the appeal by the Postal Department. In another case of State of U.P. vs. Amar Nath Yadav reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 26 (S.C.), the Apex court refused to condone 481 days delay in filing of appeal by the State of U.P. observing that it is an abnormal delay which cannot be condoned on the ground that file was moving from one Department to another. 7. In this case for delay of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
