TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore requested that the period of limitation should be counted from February 21, 2019. This delay condonation application has been verified by Tasleem Ahmed stating therein that the averments made in the delay condonation application are true and correct to the best of information and belief of the applicant and nothing has been concealed. On January 27, 2022 time has been granted to the appellant to file a proper affidavit to explain why a fresh appeal was filed against the same impugned order - Neither on March 30, 2022, when the matter was listed nor today the learned counsel for the appellant has appeared nor any affidavit has been filed - Such an abuse of the process cannot be over looked and has to be viewed seriously. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... colly), to the Appeal Memo. 2. Thereafter, the appellant had nothing to do with the company (qua his resignation from the Directorship of the company, accepted on 11.12.2014). 3. That, on 21.02.2019, consequent to the recovery proceedings initiated by the Superintendent CGST, Range Kotdwar vide his letter dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure No. 2), the appellant requested vide his letter dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure No. 3) that he be provided a certified copy of the O-I-O dated 30.06.2017. The appellant was provided a certified copy of the Adjudication order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure No. 4) on 21.02.2019 only. 4. That, on 07.03.2019, an appeal u/s 35B, is being filed, in the mandatory period of three months qua the service of the impugned Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Form No. EA-III that was filed with the appeal, a statement was also made that the appellant received the order appealed against on February 21, 2019. 4. The appellant also gave an undertaking to the following effect: BEFORE THE CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI UNDERTAKING IN RESPECT OF MATTER NOT FILED OR PENDING BEFORE ANY OTHER LEGAL FORUM INCUDING HONORABLE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT The applicant hereby declares and confirms, that he has previously not filed any Appeal, Writ Petition or suit, in respect to the Order in Original No 7147/60-65-COMMISSIONER-DDN-2017 dated 30th June 2017; before any other Court of law, or any other authority, or any other Bench of the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017, which appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on January 11, 2018 because the appellant did not deposit the statutory amount for filing the appeal. 9. The Bench, accordingly, directed the learned counsel for the appellant to file a proper affidavit to explain why a fresh appeal had been filed against the order dated June 30, 2017, when the earlier appeal to assail this order had been dismissed. The order passed by the Bench on January 27, 2022 is reproduced below: As directed by the previous order, ld. Departmental Representative has obtained instructions from the Commissionerate. According to the letter dated 12.03.2020 sent by the Joint Commissioner (Review), Dehradun that against the same impugned order-in-original No.60 65/Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ullick, learned counsel had appeared for the appellant on January 11, 2018 and had submitted that due to paucity of funds, the appellant was not able to make the pre-deposit. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. 12. What also needs to be noted from a perusal of Excise Appeal No. 50087 of 2018 is that in Form Number EA-III, that was filed with the memo of appeal, the appellant had stated that the order dated June 30, 2017, against which the appeal was filed, was received by the appellant on July 08, 2017. This appeal was also filed by Tasleem Ahmed claiming himself to be the, erstwhile Director of M/s. Sant Steel Alloy Pvt. Ltd. and he had also executed a vakalatanama in favour of Shri Pulak Raj Mullick and Shri Sahil Mullick. 13. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier assailed by the appellant by filing Excise Appeal no. 50087 of 2018 and this appeal was dismissed on January 11, 2018. The certified copy of the order was made available to the appellant on July 08, 2017, as is clearly mentioned in the earlier appeal filed by the appellant, but in the delay condonation application to the present appeal the appellant has stated that he received a certified copy of the order dated June 30, 2017 only on February 21, 2019. Such a wrong averments have been deliberately made to make out a case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 16. On January 27, 2022 time has been granted to the appellant to file a proper affidavit to explain why a fresh appeal was filed against the same impugned order. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
