2019 (4) TMI 902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ameer Jain, appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that the applicant was aggrieved of being served with the show cause notice dated 20 March 2006 proposing a demand of service tax for Rs. 3,97,463/-. The said demand was confirmed by both the Adjudicating Authorities below and order-in-appeal was dated 2 January 2017. The appeal before this Tribunal was preferred after a delay of 319 days. The impugned order was on the application of the assessee praying for condonation of the said delay. 3. It is submitted by the Counsel that in these applications,   para 3 thereof case law of Mukesh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 201 (Del.) was specifically referred to wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hand is prayed to be dismissed.  5. After hearing both the parties, pursuing the application, the order as being aggrieved of and keeping in view the arguments led by both the parties, we are of the view as follows :- The order under challenge while disposing of the impugned application forms the opinion as follows : "4. After perusal of the record, we find that the appeals against the impugned order stand filed after a considerable delay of 319 days. The reasons cited for such delay of financial difficulty in making pre-deposit cannot be considered as a justifiable reason for the enormous delay of 319 days. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appeals filed by the appellants are time barred and hence, in....