2013 (9) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Due date to file the appeals Delay as on 08 Nov. 2012 No. JMJ 71 to 76/2012 04.06.2012 7.7.2012 06.9.2012 63 days 04.6.2012 7.7.2012 06.9.2012 63 days 04.6.2012 7.7.2012 06.9.2012 63 days No.JMJ 32 & 33/2012 13.3.2012 15.3.2012 14.6.2012 147 days 13.3.2012 15.3.2012 14.6.2012 147 days   The learned consultant for the appellant reiterates the reason stated in the COD applications. It is submitted that, as soon as the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were received by the appellant, the officer concerned in the tax department of the company had emailed copies of the orders along with instructions to file appeals, to the authorised signatory, who is none other....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is no satisfactory explanation of the heavy delay involved in the process. According to him, the delay is not liable to be condoned on the facts and circumstances as stated by the appellant. In the event of the delay being condoned, the appellant should be required to pay costs. 3. After considering the submissions, we have not found satisfactory explanation of the heavy delay of the captioned appeals. The explanation is to the effect that the email communications sent by the appellant to their authorised representative were not received by the latter on account of technical problems and that, as soon as such problems were detected by the appellant, prompt action was taken to file the appeals. However, the queries put by the Bench regard....