TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent : None ORDER 1. There is an inordinate delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal challenging the final order dated 14th February 2013 of the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT') in Appeal Nos. E/1976-1984/2005 & E/2549-2551/2005. The application for condonation of delay is in three paragraphs. The only reason which is offered for the extrao....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who held in favour of the Assessee) and the Technical Member (who held in favour of the Department). 6. The central question revolves around the availing of exemption by small-scale industry in terms of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1st March 1986. Admittedly, the brand name, 'Maharaja' was in the name of Mr. Harish Kumar and his mother and his mother-in-law who are partners of Hindustan Machi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerns. There was nothing in the said document or any other document recovered to indicate that these sales figures pertained to mixer-grinders manufactured by HM. No enquiry was made with any of the dealers about the nature of the goods purchased by them with reference to the said document. Also what the Department appears to have done is to apply arbitrarily the value of Rs. 900 which was the....