On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. Rachna submitted that the General Manager (Finance) who received the impugned order left the company and after searching the old records in September, 2018, the appellants were able to file the appeal with a delay of 176 days. She submitted that there are no willful latches on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal.
An application seeking Condonation of delay in filing this appeal has been filed. In view of the averments made in the application and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel of the appellant, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated time. Accordingly, we deem it proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister’s relief fund within a period of one month.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-12-28
As the delay in presenting the present Appeal is only of 13 days, I hereby condone the same and allow the COD Application.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-12-19
At this juncture, Learned Departmental Representative submits that the amount involved in this case is Rs.25,183/- duty and penalty of Rs. 2,518/-, hence matter should be considered under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In our view, the matter should be listed for admission purposes on 10.01.2019 and direction to Learned Counsel to produce details of the other cases which are pending before the Tribunal.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-12-14
The delay being nominal and sufficient cause being made out in the COD application, the same is condoned and Registry is directed to list the appeal along with Appeal No. E/41658/2018 for hearing on 14.2.2019.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-12-06
In my view, the first appellate authority should be given an opportunity to reconsider the issue afresh. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.”
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-12-04
Early hearing applications have been filed in all these appeals. However, when the matter was called out, appellants were not present nor were they represented by any counsel or authorized representative. Therefore it appears to reason that appellants are not serious about pursuing the applications. On this ground, EH applications in all these appeals are dismissed.
The ld. counsel Shri Akshay Ananth Raman appeared on behalf of the appellant and argued that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 31.1.2017. It was received by the representative of the appellant Proprietor. On 20.12.2016, the appellant sustained an accident fall during shopping and was admitted to the hospital. His right knee was injured and had to undergo “arthroscopic partial medical menisectomy” of the right knee. He was hospitalized two days and discharged for rest and medication for almost a month. Later, due to aggravated pain and difficulty in walking, he was again hospitalized on 30.3.2017 in the same Sundaram Medical Hospital. Since the earlier operation done on the knee was not completely successful, the very same operation was further done and was discharged on 1.4.2017. He had to undergo medication as well as rest and was not able to walk. Due to his medical condition, the appellant was not able to attend to the office matters as well as to file the appeal. The delay occurred only due to the ill-health of the proprietor. He therefore prayed that a lenient view may be taken and the delay may be condoned.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-11-20
During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate Ms. K. Nancy appearing for the appellant/applicant submitted that although their appeal was allowed by the first appellate authority, the consequential reliefs could not be availed by them owing to clerical error in the above Order. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that the corrigendum as sought for by them would be issued subsequently by the authorities below, for which reason they had not filed any appeal before the Tribunal at that stage; that the lower authorities sent a communication rejecting the issuance of corrigendum on 28.02.2018 which was received by the appellant only on 10.03.2018. Thereafter, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 20.06.2018 and hence the delay of 302 days. She pleaded that the delay was neither deliberate nor wanton but only due to the above bona fide reasons.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-11-20
Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Bharathi submits that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 03.04.2018; that the Managing Partner of the appellant company had fallen ill during the material period. He subsequently passed away and hence could not file the appeal in time. He submits that the appellants have good case on merits to succeed. The delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. The appellant being a small business entity, if delay is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable financial hardship.