2018 (8) TMI 89 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 853 (Tri. – Mumbai – Condonation of delay of 21 days in filing appeal – Held that:- The ground stated in the appeal memo that the order was sent to the factory office that was received by the security personnel is not a convincing ground in the sense that such important registered letter cannot be dealt in such casual manner and assigned to the security personnel to handle the same and it appears improbable that such letter would take more than 3 weeks to travel a distance of 20 km to reach its head office – Therefore no illegality or infirmity is found in the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
–
Appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Appeal No. E/86405/2018 – Order No. A/86978 / 2018 – Dated:- 26-7-2018 – Hon ble Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member ( Judicial ) Shri G.P. Pingle, Consultant for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant M/s Kagaz Packaging has brought this appeal against the o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of order-in-original and submit the reasons for delay. After such compliance, the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was again dismissed on rejection of delay condonation petition on the ground that sufficient cause was not shown. The ld. Counsel further submitted that apart from scrutinisation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning refusal to condone delay, the case can also be heard on merit on the basis of Board circular no. 579/16/2001 prescribing procedure in respect of removal of goods by the consignor and receipt of the goods by the consignee as well as procedure dealing warehousing certificate in which appellant being consignor, is required to obtain copy of AR3 duly signed by the consignee in proof of receipt of goods at his warehouse and get released from the obligation. 3. Ld. AR for the department on the other hand, supported the rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
anything wrong in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) only to provide an opportunity to the appellant to examine the evidence of receipt of order-in-original and the reason for delay (in the said order no. A/86728/16 SMB dated 14.03.2016). The second order of the Commissioner refusing to condone the delay also reveals that acknowledgement of receipt dates 09.03.2010 though in the first order he took the date of receipt as the date on which acknowledgement was received by the department. Therefore, if the actual data is to be taken as the date of receipt of order-in-original, it is delayed about a week over 21 days. 5. In the delay condonation petition, which the appellant stated before the Commissioner that some security personnel had received the order at the factory which is situated 20 kms. away from the office and the delay was to be attributed to such fact of receipt by it in the factory. Such a plea was not tak
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ocess a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 7. In Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has follows:- since fraud affects the solemnity irregularity and orderly based of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to the abuse of the process of court, the court have been held to have an inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practice upon that court. Similarly where the court is misled by the party or the court itself counts the mistake which prejudice the party the court as inherent power to recall its order. 8. Though the above pronouncements were held in respect of civil disputes, it has a bearing on the case in hand for the reason that initial period of about 28 days delay was suppressed by the ap
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =