TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an order dated 29.9.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge on an application moved by it (C.M. No. 32052/2015), praying inter alia for modification of the order dated 02.12.2015. Vide order dated 29.9.2016, the learned Single Judge had partly allowed the application moved by the appellant/CCI by modifying the order dated 02.12.2015. Not satisfied by the said order, the present appeal was filed by the appellant on 11.1.2017. Accompanying the said appeal is an application for seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal. 2. Since the appellant/CCI was aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2016, it was required to file an intra-court appeal within 30 days, which if reckoned from 29.9.2016, would have expired on 28.10.2016. Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016 whereas, the appellant/CCI seems to have been warming up to taking a call as to whether an appeal ought to be filed or not, even till as late as 15.11.2016. The position remained the same till 13.12.2016, when the proposal for filing an appeal was still being mulled over and a decision was finally taken by the Commission. 3. In the additional affidavit filed by the appellant/CCI, yet again, there is no explanation worth the name for explaining the steps taken for the period between 29.9.2016 to 15.11.2016, except for a reference to the date on which a certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for (30.9.2016), the date on which the certified copy was ready in the Registry (06.10.2016) and the date on which the certified copy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for the respondent submits that in view of the fact that the Commission meets on a daily basis to discharge its administrative functions, the appellant/CCI cannot wish away 22 days (period between 22.11.2016 to 13.12.2016), by making a bald statement in the additional affidavit that the Commission had approved filing of the appeal only on 13.12.2016. 6. We may note that even thereafter, it has taken the appellant/CCI one and a half month to file the appeal that came to be finally filed on 11.1.2017. The explanation offered for the delay from 13.12.2016 to 11.1.2017 also shows the lackadaisical and casual approach adopted by the appellant/CCI in processing the case knowing very well that the period of limitation had long since ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne any witness whose oral statement pertaining to the petitioner has been recorded. It is yet further stated that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to make a further statement after copies of the documents have been given to the petitioner and after the official of the petitioner has been confronted with some of the documents. 4. The senior counsel for the petitioner has expressed apprehension that the respondents, in the guise of confidentiality, may deny all documents to the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the respondents states that the orders passed on the application of any other person claiming confidentiality with respect to any document / material shall also be supplied to the petitioner. 6. In this view of the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamine any witness whose oral statement pertaining to the petitioner has been recorded; iii) to give to the petitioner an opportunity to make a further statement after copies of the documents have been given to the petitioner and after the official of the petitioner has been confronted with some of the documents; iv) to give to the petitioner the orders passed on the application of any other person claiming confidentiality with respect to any document / material. 14. The respondents, through while seeking modification of their statement to give to the petitioner orders on the application of any other person claiming confidentiality with respect to any document / material have given reasons therefor, for seeking modification of their s....