TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 in each petition. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved in all these petitions, which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing today. 4. Since all these petitions are directed against the common order dated 6.2.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and the facts are also more or less common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts, as appearing in Special C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner company had been surrendered. However, in order to make pre-deposit of the said amount, the petitioners were required to seek help of consultants and obtained another central excise registration so that pre-deposit could be made. With great difficulty, the petitioners managed to gather the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, compliance was required to be reported on or before 5.2.2015. Since the website of Central Board of Excise and Customs had some server problem, the petitioners were trying hard to get the company registered and thereafter pay Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the registration. It appears that on 5.2.2015, when the matter was listed before the Tribunal for reporting complianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s be restored. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, placed reliance upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3. It was submitted that the present petitions have been filed after a considerable delay of more than one and a half years from the date of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 9. It is an accepted position as is evident from the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second and third respondents, that the petitioners have deposited the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. It has also been averred in the affidavit in reply that it is a fact that every assessee is required to pay duty or any sum payable und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eover, on account of some server problem the amount, though arranged for could not be deposited within the time granted by the Tribunal and there as a delay of two days in making the pre-deposit. In the opinion of this court, the delay of two days in making the pre-deposit in the circumstances narrated above, cannot in any manner be said to be so considerable so as to warrant dismissal of the appeals. 10. Insofar as delay in filing the present petitions are concerned, the petitioner has explained the same in detail in paragraph 8-H of the memorandum of the petition and has also annexed supporting documents on record to show that the concerned Director, viz. the second petitioner, Mr. Gautam Shantilal Shah, who was managing the affairs of....