TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal withdrawn, supplementary appeals dismissed due to delays. Timely compliance crucial for justice.</h1> <h3>CCE, Mysore Versus M/s. Sudarshan Telecom</h3> The miscellaneous application for withdrawal of appeal No.E/874/10 is allowed, leading to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn. The applications for ... Condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals - appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.90/2008 dt. 8/8/2008 was filed on 19/11/2008 - is matter came up before the Bench for disposal on 5/2/2010. Vide Note sheet order dt. 26/3/2010, this Bench noted that Department has to file two more appeals and matter was adjourned to 23/7/2010 directing the Revenue to do so. It was very clearly instructed, in the said note sheet order that supplementary appeals should be filed by 23/7/2010 - In stead of filing the appeals within the period of 3 months from 26/3/2010, they took more than 5 months to file the supplementary appeals, which is a lackadaisical approach towards the directions of the Bench and delay is also not properly justified - Decided against the revenue. Issues:1. Miscellaneous application for withdrawal of appeal.2. Applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for the withdrawal of appeal No.E/874/10. The application is allowed, and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Additionally, applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals for appeals No.E/875-876/10 are discussed. The judge notes the lackadaisical approach of the Revenue in following the directions of the Bench. The appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.90/2008 was filed on 19/11/2008, and the Bench instructed the Revenue to file supplementary appeals by 23/7/2010. However, the supplementary appeals were not filed until 3/9/2010, which was beyond the specified period. The judge criticizes the Revenue for not justifying the delay adequately and dismisses the applications for condonation of delay. Consequently, the supplementary appeals are also dismissed, and appeal No.E/839/08 is directed to be listed in due course.2. The judge emphasizes the importance of complying with directions from the Bench in a timely manner. The Revenue's failure to file the supplementary appeals within the specified period is viewed as a lackadaisical approach that is detrimental to their case. The judge finds the delay unjustified and dismisses the applications for condonation of delay. This decision highlights the significance of adhering to procedural timelines and following instructions from the Tribunal diligently to ensure the proper administration of justice. The dismissal of the supplementary appeals due to the delay serves as a reminder of the consequences of not meeting procedural requirements in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
