M\/s Rachna Construction Co. (Nag) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nagpur
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 694 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-7-2018
Application No. ST\/COD\/85593\/2018 In Appeal no. ST\/86581\/18 – M\/85652\/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Makrand Joshi, Advocate for the appellant
\nShri Atul Sharma, (AR) for the respondent
\nORDER
\nThe delay condonation petition is heard today and taken up for orders.
\n2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was received on 21.12.2017 but appeal was filed on 27.04.2018 i.e. after one month and 8 days delay in filing the appeal from prescribed period of three month<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the ground mentioned in the petition should not be taken as sufficient ground to condone delay as it was incumbent upon the management to protect the interest of the company which was negligent on its part and therefore the petition to condone the delay filed by the appellant should merit no consideration. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n inordinate and a case where the delay is of few days. Whether the delay is inordinate, the consideration of prejudice to the opposite party will be a relevant factor calling for a more cautious approach, but in the latter case where the delay is of few days, no such consideration may arise, and such a case deserves a liberal approach. The Supreme Court observed that the exercise of discretion on the facts of each case, keeping mind that in construing the expression “sufficient cause”, the principle of advancing substantial justice is the prime importance. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Rachna Construction Co. (Nag) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, NagpurService Tax2018 (8) TMI 694 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 26-7-2018Application No. ST\/COD\/85593\/2018 In Appeal no. ST\/86581\/18 – M\/85652\/2018Service TaxDr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) Shri Makrand Joshi, Advocate for the appellant Shri Atul Sharma, (AR) for the … Continue reading “M\/s Rachna Construction Co. (Nag) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nagpur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard from both sides and gone through the petition as wet! as order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is found from the order that it was pronounced on 18.1.2017. So there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant's contention that it was received by the appellant company on 21.12.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that any misstatement is made in the COD. The petition also reveal that the management took immediate action <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. In view of the above facts and circumstances coupled with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, delay of 38 days in filing appeal before t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n