2024 (2) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner (Appeals). 2. I have heard Mr.Jitin Singhal, ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Arun Sheoran, ld. Authorised Representative for the Department. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that inadvertently two applications got filed before Commissioner (Appeals) seeking condonation of delay. The application which has been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) is not pertaining to the subject matter of the present appeal. Ld. Counsel has brought to the notice para 6.5 of the impugned order. The said para reiterates the ground of the application seeking condonation of delay. It has been mentioned that sub-clause (3) in the said para is sufficient to note that the cancelation of registration is not the subject matter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the reason mentioned in the said application is not at all sufficient explanation for the delay which had occurred, there seems no infirmity in the order under challenge. This fact is sufficient to even not to grant the opportunity of re-hearing by remanding the matter back to Commissioner (Appeals). With these submissions, ld. Departmental Representative has prayed for the dismissal of the impugned appeal. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire record of the present appeal, I observe that the Order-in-Original in the present case was passed on 31st March, 2022 and the same is mentioned to have been received by the appellant on 15.04.2022. There is no dispute about the said date of receipt of order by the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is perused, which reads as follows:- "6. That the financial position of the assessee company is very crucial and not in the position to deposit minimum tax amount for acceptance of the appeal and 26-28 days spent for arrange the said amount and deposited to CBIC on 14/07/2022." 9. Perusal thereof along with the entire application at-least clarifies that the application pertains to the subject matter of the present appeal. 10. In the given circumstances and keeping in view the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (28) ELT 185 (S.C.) that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late, it is held that appella....