2017 (8) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssociates, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : M.R. Shah, J. (Oral)]. - Present application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requesting to condone the delay of 539 days caused in preferring the tax appeal. 2. Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that as such, there was no deliberate negligence on the part of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a very meritorious case and if the delay is not condoned, in that case, the Revenue is likely to suffer. 3. Present application is vehemently opposed by Ms. Priyank Parikh, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Nanavati Associates appearing on behalf of the respondent. An affidavit-in-reply is also filed opposing the present application. It is submitted that merely because the department was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....done the delay, we are of the opinion that the delay has been explained sufficiently. From the averments made in the application, it appears that from the very beginning, the Department took a decision to challenge the decision of CESTAT, however, because of inaction on the part of one of the officer, the Department could not file tax appeal within the period of limitation. Thus, because of delibe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the respondent is concerned, it is required to be noted that on facts, the Apex Court found that sufficient cause has not been shown, and therefore, the Court did not condone the delay. Similar is with respect to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Karan Monomers P. Limited (supra). 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated ....