Appeal dismissed due to significant delay in filing beyond limitation period. Lack of evidence for condonation application.

The Tribunal denied the appellant's appeal due to a significant delay of almost 3 years in filing the appeal beyond the normal limitation period. The appellant's claim of lack of communication with their advocate, resulting from the advocate's office moving to Dubai, was deemed insufficient as there was a lack of concrete evidence and details provided regarding the timeline of events. The Condonation of Delay (COD) application was also rejected by the Tribunal for the same reason, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay (COD) application

Delay in filing appeal:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the appellant with a delay of almost 3 years beyond the normal period of limitation. The impugned order-in-original was passed by the Commissioner on a specific date, and the appellant received it a few days later. The appellant claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the advocate's office closing down and shifting to Dubai, resulting in a lack of communication regarding the appeal status. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no concrete evidence or details provided by the appellant regarding the timeline of events, such as when the advocate was appointed, when the appeal papers were prepared and signed, and by whom. The General Manager's affidavit, who allegedly signed the papers, was also missing. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to be vigilant in ensuring the appeal filing and did not make timely inquiries from the advocate's office. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reasonable or genuine grounds to condone the significant delay of 3 years in filing the appeal.

Condonation of delay (COD) application:
The appellant submitted a Condonation of Delay (COD) application, citing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that they handed over the impugned order to their advocate for appeal preparation, but only discovered the appeal was not filed when the Revenue sent a notice for dues recovery in 2014. The appellant then procured the appeal papers from the advocate's office, which had shifted to Dubai, and filed the appeal through another advocate. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal found the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's version of events. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of crucial details and affidavits, such as the advocate's appointment date, the signing of appeal papers, and the whereabouts of the demand draft required for the appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the COD application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation.

---