Md.Riazuddin Ahmed vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No.ST-75652/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must state the exact number of days of delay in the application and must support its plea of reasonable cause with evidence; a bare assertion that the delay was unintentional, unsupported by evidence, does not justify condonation. Where the appellate authority below had already rejected the appeal as time-barred on the same unsubstantiated plea, the Tribunal may dismiss the condonation application, and the appeal and stay application fall with it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.51/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/13 dated 1.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Customs & Central Excise, Guwahati.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE DR. I.P. LAL, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
Md.Riazuddin Ahmed Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati Respondent (s)
Appearance:
NONE for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.N.Mondal, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 08.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 08.07.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75376/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. None present for the applicant, a request has been made to hear the case on merit. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue.
2. The present miscellaneous application is filed seeking condonation of delay. Neither the exact number of days has not been stated in the application, nor any valid reason supported by evidence, is enclosed along with the application. Further, the ld.AR for the Revenue submits that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) had also rejected their appeal on the ground of time bar as before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) also they could not substantiate the delay by adducing evidence in support of their plea for condonation of delay.
3. We find that even though the applicant has submitted that the delay was unintentional, however, they could not able to place/adduce evidence in favour of such statement. In the result we do not see any merit in the application. Accordingly the Miscellaneous Application(COD) is dismissed. Consequently the Appeal and Stay Application are also dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.ST-75652/14
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