TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Priyank Parikh for M/s. Nanavati Associates, 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that as such applicant has 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 sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issions made in support of the application to condone 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Limited (supra) by the learned advocate appearing 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.&....