Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.—This application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 267 days occasioned in filing Tax Appeal (Stamp) No. 607 of 2010, which is directed against the final order dated 18th November 2008 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad ("the CESTAT" for short).

We have heard Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate for Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the opponents. We have also perused the averments made in the application.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was under a bona fide belief that the case having been sent back to the authorities for quantifying the applicant''s liability, there was no confirmed demand that the applicant was required to discharge, therefore, delay has occasioned in filing the appeal as the applicant was under the impression that only after being heard, would it have a cause for paying any amount, or would the matter be taken any further, if any liability remained to be discharged by the applicant.

Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the opponent has objected to the explanation for delay as submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, on the ground that the impugned order of the CESTAT dated 18-11-2008 itself had been served upon the applicant on 27-11-2008, and that the explanation tendered for the said delay is neither satisfactory nor sufficient. He, therefore, submits that the delay may not be condoned.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the application, we find that in the final order of the CESTAT, at Serial No. (v) thereof, there is the following recital:

(v) Appellant''s liability would be quantified by the authorities in accordance with the law as decided above.

Appeal is disposed off in above terms.

In view of the above and in view of the explanation rendered in the application, especially paragraph 4 thereof, we find that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay. The record does not reveal that the applicant has been negligent or has abandoned the cause, therefore, in our view, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay of 267 days occasioned in filing the Tax Appeal (Stamp) No. 607 of 2010 is condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.