TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise, Panchkula by which service tax demand of Rs. 32,40,081/- was confirmed against the appellant along with interest thereon under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and beside this, while penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under Section 78 ibid, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on them under Section 77 ibid. The stay application has been filed for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal and also for stay on recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. Since, there is delay of 262 days in filing of the appeal, a separate application has been filed for condonation of delay. The miscellaneous application No. ST/M/54597/14 has been filed for early hearing of the appeal and the other misc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Consultant and after getting a suitable Advocate got the appeal filed on 25/07/14, that in view of this, there is no undue delay in filing of the appeal, that the appellant has a strong case on merits and, therefore, in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2014 (47) GST 82/48 Taxman.com3 (New Delhi CESTAT), wherein it was held that though the delay was not properly explained, in view of prima facie arguable case, and the principle that appellate remedy must not be denied only on account of delay and delay must be condoned liberally, the court condoned the delay on payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/-, that the ratio of this judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) has held that law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and that in view of this, the appeal filed by the appellant is time barred. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The order dated 30th July, 2013 was admittedly received by the appellant on 04/08/13. The appellant admittedly is a proprietorship concern owned by Shri R.P. Pandhi. It is seen that the appellant took about 70 days time in handing over the case papers to their Consultant Shri Vinod Jain and when there was no response from the Consultant, for about one month, no alternate arrangement by engaging other Counsel was made. Even if it is accepted that from November 2013 to June, 20....