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 Dismissed Due to Appellant's Negligence</h1> <h3>THE ASHOK Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I</h3> THE ASHOK Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 65 (Tri. - Del.) , 2014 (34) S.T.R. 158 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Delay of 812 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 24-6-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:The appellant sought condonation of the 812-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to lack of communication between the appellant's representative and the legal and tax departments. The appellant claimed that the delay was unintentional and cited instances of depositing interest and penalty amounts before realizing the correct penalty percentage. The appellant referred to Supreme Court judgments to support the plea for condonation. The Revenue argued against condonation, emphasizing the significant delay and lack of sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the appellant received the impugned order on 26-6-2009, with the appeal filed on 14-12-2011, well beyond the limitation period.The Tribunal highlighted that to succeed, the appellant must prove that the delay was unintentional and due to a reasonable cause. The appellant's explanation of lack of communication was deemed vague and insufficient. Despite being aware of the need to file an appeal in December 2010, the appellant only took action in May 2011 by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The Tribunal found the appellant's actions as gross negligence, especially considering the delay from December 2010 to May 2011 without filing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the argument that pursuing the wrong remedy in the High Court was a valid excuse, stating that the judgments cited by the appellant were not applicable due to the appellant's negligence.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient cause for the 812-day delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal held that the appellant's gross negligence in pursuing the available remedy and the lack of a reasonable cause for the delay warranted the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 