M/S Shree Ganesh Construction Co vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/11279/2015-DB
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay in filing an appeal caused by the appellant's inability to arrange the funds for the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not, without more, a sufficient ground for condonation of delay; a general plea of financial difficulty unsupported by material does not establish sufficient cause. Where the delay is sought to be justified by reference to a decision of the Supreme Court, that decision, if concerned with the merits of the case rather than condonation of delay, does not govern the question of condonation at that stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Application No. : ST/COD/10682/2015 [ Arising out of OIA-SUR-EXCUS-001-APP-136-2014-15 Dated 14/10/2014 Passed by Commissioners of Central Exise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I]
M/s Shree Ganesh Construction Co : Appellant(s)
Vs
C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
Appellant(s) :Shri Nirav Shah (Advocate) Respondent (s) : Shri L. Patra (Authorised Representative)
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision :21/08/2015
ORDER No. A/11237/2015 Dated: 21/08/2015
Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem,
The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of filing appeal for 175 days.
2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the delay was caused due to financial difficulties, as the applicant failed to arrange the money for making the mandatory deposits for filing appeal. He further submits that merit of the appeal is in favour of the appeallant. The Tribunal granted stay to other applicants on the identical issues. He referred the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pirayam Subhash [2015 (39) S.T.R. 540 (S.C.)]. He further submits that the delay of filing appeal may be viewed leniently.
3. On perusal of the records, we do not find any force in the submission of the Learned Advocate that the delay was for arranging fund for the mandatory deposit under the provision of law. In our considered view, the requirement of mandatory deposit under the provision of Section 35F, of the Central Excise Act 1944 as amended is linked with the filing of appeal. The delay in filing the appeal for arranging the fund for mandatory deposit would be the general feature, without any material. The delay of filing appeals would be considered on the basis of facts of each case. The decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pirayam Subhash (Supra) as referred by the Learned Advocate is in respect of merits of the case. Hence, the said decision will not be applicable, at this stage. In view of the above, we do not find any reason for condoning delay of filing appeal. So, COD application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M.Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Abhishek ??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free