TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 for delay in filing cross objections under Finance Act; no substantial question of law found.</h1> The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the CESTAT decision not to condone the delay of 468 days in filing cross objections under Section 86(4) of ... Condonation of delay of 468 days in filing appeal - no reasonable reasons for condonation of delay produced - HELD THAT:- It appears that there are no reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by CESTAT, New Delhi while deciding the delay condonation application of this appellant vide order dated 23rd July, 2019 (Annexure A-1) - We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the CESTAT, New Delhi for not condoning the delay vide order dated 12th September, 2019, we see no reasons to take any other view. Hence, no substantial questions of law is involved in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:Challenge to order by CESTAT on delay in filing cross objections under Section 86(4) of Finance Act, 1994.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Filing Cross Objections:The appellant challenged the CESTAT order that did not condone a delay of 468 days in filing cross objections under Section 86(4) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant cited financial difficulties and the need to locate documents from 2005 and 2006 as reasons for the delay. However, the CESTAT found these reasons insufficient for condonation of the delay, especially considering the nominal court fees required for filing. The CESTAT noted that the appellant had multiple adjournments and engaged several lawyers during the process, indicating a lack of diligence in filing the cross objections within the stipulated time.2. Reasoning by CESTAT:The CESTAT, in its order, highlighted that the appellant received notices within the required timeframe for filing cross objections but failed to do so promptly. The CESTAT emphasized that the delay of 468 days was not adequately explained by the appellant, despite engaging multiple counsels and receiving reminders from the tribunal. The CESTAT observed that the appellant's claim of ineffective legal representation in 2017 did not justify the extensive delay in filing the cross objections.3. Lack of Substantial Question of Law:After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the High Court concurred with the CESTAT's decision not to condone the delay. The Court found no substantial question of law raised by the appellant that warranted a different outcome. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the cross objections, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.4. Dismissal of Appeal:Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the CESTAT. The Court concluded that the reasons presented by the appellant for the delay were not acceptable, given the circumstances and the timeline provided for filing cross objections. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal led to the disposal of related applications as well.This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, the reasoning behind the decisions made by the CESTAT and the High Court, and the ultimate dismissal of the appeal due to the failure to provide valid reasons for the delay in filing cross objections.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
