9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 29.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief averments in the petition are that the said order dated 29.3.2010 was not received by the appellant and the appellant came to know about the order only when they received a letter from the Department regarding Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019). The appellant though attended the personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) they did not receive the impugned order thereafter. After receiving the letter dated 20.12.2019 in regard to the SVLDR scheme, the appellant obtained the copy of the impugned order unofficially from the Department. On realising that the appellant had a good case on merits they did not opt for the SVLDR scheme and decided to file an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15. These appeals were disposed vide Final Order No. 53202-53203/2018 dated 30.10.2018. The demands challenged in these appeals were set aside and the appeals were allowed in favour of the appellant/petitioner herein. He submitted that there was no mala fide on the part of the appellant in not filing an appeal and prayed that the delay may be condoned. He relied upon the following decisions: (i) Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & ST, Lucknow - 2018 (12) GSTL 34 (Tri.-All.); (ii) Miscellaneous Order No. 74/2021 dated 27.8.2021 in the case of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner; (iii) Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag And Another Vs. Mst. Katiji And Others - 1987 (28) 185 (SC). 6. Learned Authorised Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals). The learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kagaz Packaging Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nashik - 2018 (362) ELT 853 (Tri.-Mumbai). The decision of the Tribunal by Final Order No. 50945/2019 dated 9.7.2019 in Service Tax Appeal No. 50932/2019 And ST/COD/50393/2019 was also relied. He prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 9. Heard both sides. 10. As per the application it is stated there is a delay of 9 years and 222 days. The Department contends that the delay is 10 years and 7 months (3860 days). The appellant contends that they have not received the copy of the impugned order and that they came to know about the order only after receiving a lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he delay was only 935 days and the facts or conclusion in the said case arrived cannot be applied to the application before us which is to condone the delay of about 10 years. 12. The decision in the case of Kerala Roadways Vs. Commissioner of C.T. & C. Ex., Calicut - 2020 (42) GSTL 80 (Tri. - Bang.) was also referred by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant/applicant in the said case had sought condonation of delay of 3666 days in filing the appeal. The application was originally dismissed by the Tribunal against which the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the matter was remanded directing the appellant to file fresh affidavit explaining the cause of delay. After considering the reasons as per the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
