Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay and Failure to Show Sufficient Cause

The tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to a substantial delay in filing, rejecting the appellant's attempt to blame the previous counsel. Despite addressing the deposit issue, the tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Legal principles cited were deemed inapplicable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)
- Non-deposit of 7.5% of the amount of duty confirmed by the original adjudicating authority

Analysis:
- Delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals):
- The appellant acknowledged a delay of over two years in filing the appeal, attributing it to the negligence of the previous counsel.
- The appellant argued that the previous counsel's negligence led to the delay and cited case laws to support the contention that the appellant should not be penalized for the counsel's fault.
- However, the tribunal observed that there was no evidence of negligence by the previous counsel. The appellant had failed to file a reply to the show cause notice, and the previous counsel had requested and been granted time to submit a defense.
- The tribunal found that the appellant had not shown due diligence in pursuing the matter and that the delay could not be justified by blaming the previous counsel.
- Citing legal principles, the tribunal concluded that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and dismissed the appeal.

- Non-deposit of 7.5% of the amount of duty:
- The appellant had deposited 10% of the duty amount, including the 7.5% required before filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
- The tribunal noted that this deposit requirement had been met, and there was no objection to the matter being remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
- Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the order dismissing the appeal, stating that there was no need for remand despite the deposit issue being resolved.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the substantial delay in filing, despite the deposit issue being addressed. The appellant's attempt to blame the previous counsel for the delay was not accepted, and the tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The legal principles cited did not apply to the circumstances of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---