2013 (6) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - By this petition, the petitioner has essentially prayed for quashing of order dated 14-3-2012, Annexure-P1, passed by respondent no. 2 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and has cable network in Itarsi, District, Hoshangaba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent no. 2. Since a delay of 259 days in filing the appeal was reported, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner stated that matter was handed over to Shri Arup K. Das, Advocate, for the purposes of filing the appeal who, due to problems in his matrimonial life, did not pay attention as a result of which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication for stay. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, for the purposes of deciding an application for condonation of delay, the only question requires for consideration is whether the petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It has also been argued that condition of depositing 50% of the tax by the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o have decided the petitioner's application for condonation of delay only on the ground whether it was prevented by a sufficient cause in filing the appeal. The condition of depositing 50% of the tax amount for condoning the delay is apparently illegal. Respondent no. 2 ought not to have mixed this issue with the application separately filed for stay.  7. We accordingly quash the impu....