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>Appellant's Appeal Delay Condoned Due to GST Impact & Officer's Sickness</h1> <h3>Shandong Heavy Industry India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, Nhava Sheva II</h3> The Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for delay in filing the appeal reasonable due to the impact of the GST regime and the officer's sickness. ... Condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the appeal - delay occurred as the appellant/applicant to switch over to GST regime effective from 01.07.2013 and also for sickness of the officer in-charge of customs related matter - Held that:- It can be said that appellant's submissions are not based on factual aspect but the grounds submitted by the applicant for filing of appeal at a belated stage that introduction of GST regime had kept busy the corporate world for a considerable time - Further having regard to the fact that the authorised signatory was sick and medical certificate is filed to that effect, it is considered that cause of delay was 'reasonable' for which delay is condonable - the delay of 206 days in filing appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- to the Government Treasury within a month hence - COD application allowed. Issues: Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.Analysis:1. Grounds of Delay: The appellant attributed the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal to the transition to the GST regime and the sickness of the customs officer in charge. The appellant submitted a medical certificate and an application for leave to support the officer's sickness.2. Objection by Respondent: The respondent department objected, stating that the actual delay was 206 days, not 110 days as claimed by the appellant. The medical certificate indicated the officer was fit to resume duty earlier than the appeal was filed, suggesting negligence on the appellant's part.3. Justification for Delay: The appellant's counsel argued that no duty demand was made by the department, and the appeal was necessary due to the rejection of the SAD refund. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the counsel emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and requested leniency in considering the delay.4. Clarification by Appellant: The appellant clarified that the incorrect mention of 110 days in the appeal memo and COD petition was due to an inadvertent error in drafting. The delay in filing the appeal in May 2018 after the officer resumed duty in April 2018 was unintentional.5. Decision: The Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for delay reasonable, considering the impact of the GST regime and the officer's sickness. However, the misstatement of facts led to a requirement for the appellant to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to condone the delay of 206 days. The COD application was allowed, and the appeal would be admitted for hearing upon payment of the specified cost.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
