Date of Order:
On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Consultant, Shri S. Ramachandran, submitted that the Order-in-Appeal, though claimed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise to have already been sent to the appellant’s office on 19.05.2017, was actually received by the appellants on 12.02.2018. He submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but only due to the above reasons.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-23
After perusing the materials on record and the accompanying affidavit, we find that the delay was caused primarily due to the consultant misplacing the file pertaining to the subject litigation and the same only being traced during the first week of April, 2018.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-23
On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel, Shri M. Jaban Alpha, submitted that due to some administrative reasons, the appellants failed to contact their Advocates on time owing to which there has been a delay of 9 days in filing the appeal. He also prayed for condonation of delay stating that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay of 9 days is condoned, but the appellant would be highly prejudiced if the appeal is not entertained.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-07-20
Ld. DR for Department has requested some more time to give copy of requisite document to the appellants. Matter therefore stands adjourned to 14.08.18. Documents should be provided on or before the said date.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-18
After hearing both sides, we find that the reason given by the appellant is satisfactory. The delay of 88 days involved in filing of the appeal is condoned and the miscellaneous application for condoning the delay is allowed. Since the issue lies before the Single Member Bench, Registry is directed to list the appeal before Single Member. Issue notice.
Court: GSTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2018-07-17
In the present appeal, the Registry has raised the objection that the appellant is required to pay 7.5% of the duty involved in the present case. In response to the objection raised by the Registry, the applicant has submitted that the present appeal is in second round of litigation since it was remanded by Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20860/2015 dated 23.03.2015. At the time of said application, the Hon’ble Bench has observed in Para 2 as under:
This appeal is directed against impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) Pune. The amount involved in this appeal is Rs. 16,44,131/-
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-16
On behalf of the appellant, Shri J. Shankar Raman, ld. counsel submitted that the appellant was directed to make predeposit of Rs.28.90 lakhs as per Stay Order dated 15.1.2013. The appellant made a predeposit of Rs.5 lakhs and requested for further time to make the predeposit. Vide Misc. Order dated 3.4.2013, the Tribunal granted six weeks’ time to make the entire predeposit and report compliance on 23.5.2013. It was made clear that the no further extension will be granted for complying with the stay order. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance on 7.6.2013. It is the case of the appellant that there was a change of counsel and that they were not aware of the dismissal of the appeal for non-deposit. Further, they have not received the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to dismissal of the appeal. The appellant had applied by RTI to ensure whether the final order was served upon them. Information was received that the final order was dispatched by the Tribunal and there is no proof that it was delivered to the appellant. Therefore, the ld. counsel prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file. The appellant has also filed another miscellaneous application seeking to modify the stay order passed by the Tribunal directing to predeposit Rs.28.90 lakhs.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-17
The ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appearing for the appellant submitted that the consultant who was handling the matter fell ill and was advised bed rest for a period of 60 days. In support of his argument, he has produced the medical certificate.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-13
Ld. Consultant Shri M. Ponnuswamy, submits that in these cases early hearing is being sought for the reason that appellant is a small time service provider of DTH services in Madurai; Initially four show cause notices were issued for the periods 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2012, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 inter alia demanding tax liability of Rs.35 lakhs. However, recurrent show cause notices have been continued to be issued subsequent to that also. For these reasons, they are seeking early hearing in the matter. Ld. consultant also submits that related Appeal Nos. ST/42025/2015 & ST/41198/2016 concerning the same issue may also be tagged with the present appeals.