AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard respective counsel. Challenge is to the order of CESTAT dated 2-8-2010 refusing to con-clone delay of 8 years in filing appeal before it. The order questioned was dated 28-3-2002. By that order the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with its earlier order by which the appellant was directed to pre-deposit 25% of total amount (approximately Rs. 1,02,940/-) and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- within 15 days.
Mr. Kalwaghe states that the impugned order does not show application of mind to the facts and hence it is perverse and does not show exercise of judicial powers.
Mr. Deshpande invites our attention to the application for condonation of delay to urge that it is vague.
We have perused the application for condonation of delay filed before CESTAT. It does not explain the steps taken within said period of 8 years. The only reason pleaded in the application is that there was litigation between the applicant and the bank. Reason disclosed to us is of fire breaking out in industry in 1997. Both the events are much before the directions to deposit 25% of total amount. The steps taken after that direction to comply with it are not pleaded anywhere. Facts, therefore, show that after eight years suddenly on one day application has been filed before the CESTAT. We, therefore, do not see perversity or jurisdictional error. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Rejected.