2019 (1) TMI 974 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Penalty u/s 76 of FA – condonation of delay of 1293 days in filing the cross objection – Tribunal rejected the application – HC directed the tribunal to reconsider the application, while tribunal as passed the Final Order itself – the factum of Final Order dated 02.07.2018 was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh despite that the said Order is acknowledged to be very much in the knowledge of the respondent-assessee – Held that:- The circumstances as narrated since were not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the Ld. Counsel for the respondent assesses has requested time to seek clarification from the Hon’ble High Court itself. In the interest of justice and in view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, time as requested is hereby given.
–
Since before this Tribunal nothing is pending as on date, Appeal being already disposed of, liberty is given to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y the respondent assessee seeking condonation of delay of 1293 days in filing the cross objection. The said application was listed on many occasions where after it was listed on 22.11.2017 when this Tribunal gave a written direction to the assessee respondent to file detailed chronology of dates with full background so as to appreciate the reason for delay of 1293 days in filing the cross objection. The matter for the purpose was adjourned to 12.12.2017. Owing to the absence of the respondent-assessee and the circumstances as detailed and the order dated 12.12.2017 that the Miscellaneous Application of the respondent assessee was dismissed and the Appeal of Revenue was listed for final hearing on 12.01.2018. 3. This Tribunal vide the Order dated 02.07.2018 has allowed the impugned Appeal of the Revenue vide the Final Order No. 52378/2018 dated 02.07.2018 holding : 6. From the record of the case, we find that the demand stands raised for the period 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2010. The amendmen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
vide Order dated 02.07.2018 as such: After going through the order sheet and the proceedings recorded by the Tribunal on 22.11.2017, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2017 is contrary to the facts available on record. The Tribunal failed to see that the appellant was directed to furnish the details or the chronological events on 22.11.2017 and the case was posted on 12.12.2017. On the said date request was made for an adjournment on the ground of illness of the counsel of the appellant. Heavens would not have fallen if the case was adjourned for a week or so to enable the appellant to put forth his case before the Tribunal. In view of the foregoing we cannot sustain the order impugned and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide it in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. The circumstances as narrated above since were not brought to the notice of the Hon ble High Cour
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =