Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a delay of four years and six months in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that the original appeal memo was filed within time but remained defective and was not refiled after removal of defects.
Analysis: The appeal was admittedly accompanied by defects, and the first defect memo was duly served calling upon the appellant to cure them. No satisfactory explanation was offered for not removing the defects within the time granted. The claim that later defect intimations were not received at a changed address did not assist, because the correspondence was sent to the address disclosed in the appeal and the core failure remained the absence of any sufficient cause for non-compliance with the first memo. Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits acceptance of a defective memorandum on sufficient cause being shown, but it does not create a right to revive the matter indefinitely or to file the appeal a second time after failure to regularise the original filing.
Conclusion: The delay was not supported by sufficient cause and could not be condoned. The application was rejected, and the attempt to treat the later refiling as a fresh appeal was not accepted.