2022 (12) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) 1. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and germane, all the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, we take up MAT 1663 of 2022 for discussion. Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022 2. This is an application to condone the delay of 123 days in filing the instant appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Somnath Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant duly assisted by Mr. Sukalpa Seal, learned Advocate and Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents duly assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned Advocate. 4. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the time limit prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the appellate authority having left with no option had dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant could have immediately preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, but once again the appellant was not diligent and there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in our view, the learned Tribunal rightly viewed that there is no reasonable explanation given by the appellant for exercising the discretion in his favour. 8. Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue seeks to support the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal as well as that of the first appellate authority. There is no q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1/2007-ST dated 6th October, 2007 as amended. The remaining amount of Rs.73,912/- claimed as refund was rejected. The said order pertained to a claim for refund for the period from April, 2008 to September, 2008. Initially, the adjudicating authority had held against the appellant and aggrieved over the same, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Kolkata challenging the order in original dated 24th March, 2009. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 10th November, 2009 against which the appellant had preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 15th September, 2017 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. On remand, the adjudicating aut....