TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch has occasioned in preferring the appeal. 2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of salt at Okha Madhi Salt Works. The appellant took registration under the taxable category of Maintenance or Repair Services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services on 14.6.2010 and holding a registration number as well. An investigation was carried out by the Central Excise Department regarding the activities of the appellant and based upon certain details gathered during the process of investigation for the years commencing from 2005- 06 to 2009-10, the proceedings were initiated for the purpose of recovery of tax by issuing show cause notice on 14.10.2010. The show cause was based upon the fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or was submitted before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not considered and therefore, the order is arbitrary, without assigning cogent reasons and based upon technical consideration. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have considered the explanation which has been given in detail not only in the memo of civil application for seeking condonation of delay but, was supported by a separate document in the form of affidavit. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to an affidavit (Pg.365 of the compilation) wherein, Mr.Bhavesh Madhavjibhai Parmar, partner of the appellant has categorically stated that Mr.Dinesh Nathabhai Parmar, who was the in-charge of the affairs of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the order impugned in the present appeal, we found that the relevant explanation which has been projected by the appellant before the Tribunal has not been properly gone into and prima facie, the affidavit which has been submitted before the Tribunal ought to have been considered in right spirit. The reasons which are shown as reflected in Para.5 are not sufficient enough to substantiate the conclusion and therefore, we are of the opinion that the delay of 148 days should not be allowed to come in the way of appellant in prosecuting the appeal on merits. It is a settled legal position of law that substantial justice is pitted against the technic....