TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant in this case) have filed a miscellaneous application for restoration of its application for condonation of delay No. C/COD/10252/2016 preferred in Appeal No. E/10587/2016, which was dismissed by this Tribunal by its order No. A/12664/2017 dated 19.09.2017. In the ROA application, the applicant has mentioned that they had filed appeal before Tribunal against order-in-original No. SUR-EXCUS-001-COM-012-15-16 dated 23.07.2015 which involved a delay of 98 days. The Tribunal gave them time to explain delay by way of filing an affidavit which was not done by the applicant and therefore, by order dated 19.09.2017 their appeal No. E/10587/2016 was dismissed. The present application for restoration of their applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted an affidavit of the Managing Director mentioning the above points. He stated that there was hardly any staff to look after the affairs of the company because of closer of operation. As no officer was handling tax matters, when their application for COD was listed, it was not represented by the applicant. The delay of 98 days was not deliberate but was due to severe financial crisis/ closer of business operation. They have requested for restoring their condonation application and the related appeal. 2.1 Learned Advocate also quoted the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported at 2019 (365) ELT 508, wherein delay in revival of applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant had already failed in justifying delay in filing appeal in 2015. And the present Miscellaneous application has again been filed after a gap of more than 7 years which is not supported by the statute. He mentioned that the Limitation Act provides that restoration application be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal. 4. We have gone through facts of the case and find that there was a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal by the applicant before the Tribunal. The Bench gave enough time to them, to submit affidavit explaining delay which they failed to comply within the time granted by the Tribunal. As they failed to show any reasons for inordinate delay, their Miscellaneous application was dismissed and conseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was dismissed on 17-3-2009. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal on 6-5-2009 before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal vide order dated 8-5-2009 dismissed the appeals of the appellant for failing to comply with its order dated 28-1-2008. After that, the appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed in default on 13-7-2009, in consequence whereof, the aforesaid orders had somewhat merged into the order of the Supreme Court. 17. As discussed hereinabove, the appellant woke up from its slumber after 5½ years and deposited the amount on 20-3-2015 in both the cases and moved applications in July, 2016 before the Tribunal to recall its dismissal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is condonable when sufficient cause is shown. Explanation should be from the last day of limitation. Appellant must show diligence and bona fides and not inaction or negligence. Condoning such delays would make the proceedings interminable and would legalize injustice. Compliance of orders and time limit is the norm and mandate. If a party comes with a plea which shows its inaction, casual approach as well as its lack of bona fide, then its claim must be rejected. 20. Mere payment cannot result in restoration of appeal by moving an application where there has been an unexplained delay. The appellant has failed to disclose good cause and justification. The case in hand entirely manifests recklessness, demonstrates lack of bona fides....