Excise & Customs : While considering application seeking condonation of delay, application cannot be asked as to what transpired during original time-limit i.e. from receipt of order till due date; appellate authority can only seek explanation of delay from due date till date of actual filing of appeal
Excise & Customs : Delay need not be explained date-wise/mechanically; reasons advanced for delay should evince bona fides and should be sufficient to warrant condonation
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 329 (Calcutta)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Universal Paper Mills Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate*
INDIRA BANERJEE AND ANINDITA ROY SARASWATI, JJ.
CEXA NO. 10 OF 2013†
GA NO. 1673 OF 2013
JULY 24, 2013
Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Condonation of Delay - Appellate Tribunal - Assessee received order of Commissioner (Appeals) on 29-10-2009 and filed appeal thereagainst on 26-5-2010, as against due date of 29-1-2010 - Assessee claimed that since its factory was usurped by rival shareholder groups in January 2010, it came to know of said order in April 2010 and sought condonation of delay - Tribunal denied condonation on ground that assessee could not explain what transpired during original time-limit from 29-10-2009 to January 2010 - Assessee argued that Tribunal could not ask what transpired between original time-limit from 29-10-2009 to 29-1-2010; Tribunal can only seek explanation of delay viz. from 30-1-2010 to 26-5-2010 - HELD : Assessee was required to explain delay from 29-1-2010 onwards and not from 29-10-2009 onwards - Delay need not be explained date-wise/mechanically; reasons advanced for delay should evince bona fides and should be sufficient to warrant condonation - Tribunal should have taken note of consequences of usurpation of an office and consequential misplacement of records and files - Hence, matter was remanded back to consider explanation of delay only from 29-1-2010 onwards [Paras 18 to 24] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16-3-1995
Excise & Customs : Delay need not be explained date-wise/mechanically; reasons advanced for delay should evince bona fides and should be sufficient to warrant condonation
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 329 (Calcutta)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Universal Paper Mills Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate*
INDIRA BANERJEE AND ANINDITA ROY SARASWATI, JJ.
CEXA NO. 10 OF 2013†
GA NO. 1673 OF 2013
JULY 24, 2013
Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appeals - Condonation of Delay - Appellate Tribunal - Assessee received order of Commissioner (Appeals) on 29-10-2009 and filed appeal thereagainst on 26-5-2010, as against due date of 29-1-2010 - Assessee claimed that since its factory was usurped by rival shareholder groups in January 2010, it came to know of said order in April 2010 and sought condonation of delay - Tribunal denied condonation on ground that assessee could not explain what transpired during original time-limit from 29-10-2009 to January 2010 - Assessee argued that Tribunal could not ask what transpired between original time-limit from 29-10-2009 to 29-1-2010; Tribunal can only seek explanation of delay viz. from 30-1-2010 to 26-5-2010 - HELD : Assessee was required to explain delay from 29-1-2010 onwards and not from 29-10-2009 onwards - Delay need not be explained date-wise/mechanically; reasons advanced for delay should evince bona fides and should be sufficient to warrant condonation - Tribunal should have taken note of consequences of usurpation of an office and consequential misplacement of records and files - Hence, matter was remanded back to consider explanation of delay only from 29-1-2010 onwards [Paras 18 to 24] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16-3-1995
No comments:
Post a Comment