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>Court restores petition after rejecting challenge against delay condonation, emphasizing need for plausible explanations.</h1> <h3>NORTH BENGAL TRAILER SERVICE Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> NORTH BENGAL TRAILER SERVICE Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 159 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Application for restoration - CAN No. 3555 of 20182. Challenge to CESTAT order - WP No. 6214(W) of 2018Analysis:1. Application for Restoration (CAN No. 3555 of 2018): The application for restoration was accepted based on sufficient causes shown, leading to the recall of the order of dismissal dated May 16, 2018. Consequently, WP No. 6214(W) of 2018 was restored to its original file and number. The application under CAN No. 3555 of 2018 was allowed without any order as to costs.2. Challenge to CESTAT Order (WP No. 6214(W) of 2018): The writ petition challenged an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, where an application for condonation of delay was rejected on March 22, 2018. The impugned order noted the absence of a specific explanation for the delay other than a general reason of illness, leading to the refusal to condone the delay. The petitioner argued for lenient consideration citing medical evidence of illness and the meritorious nature of the appeal. However, the Court emphasized that while delay applications should be viewed leniently, a sufficient and plausible explanation is necessary. In this case, the petitioner's general illness explanation did not cover the entire delay period, especially considering the partnership firm structure with multiple partners. The Court found that the illness did not incapacitate the person from pursuing the appeal, and the CESTAT's decision to reject the delay condonation was upheld. The Court clarified that leniency in delay condonation does not equate to automatic allowance, emphasizing the need for plausible explanations for delay condonation.In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the CESTAT order was dismissed with no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon fulfilling the necessary formalities.
TaxTMI 