75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

November 2015

[2015] 61 taxmann.com 124 (Jharkhand) – Adhunik Power Transmission Ltd vs. UOI.

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Dismissal of delayed appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for want of application for condonation of delay is valid.

Facts:
The petitioner preferred appeal against the order beyond statutory period of 90 days with a delay of 14 days. The petitioner did not file the application for condonation of delay at the time of appeal and hence appeal was rejected. The petitioner’s case is that office of the Commissioner (Appeals) did not point out this defect and therefore, petitioner did not file the condonation application. It was also contended that no opportunity to file the condonation application was given by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Held:
Dismissing the petition, the Hon. High Court held that the petitioner cannot say that there ought to have been appeal defect pointed out by the office of Commissioner (Appeals), otherwise the petitioner will never file delay of condonation application. Such ‘convenient’ argument is not accepted because the petitioner is a company limited and is not an illiterate or ignorant person. Reasons cannot be presumed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, everybody should know the law and should have filed the condonation application for delay, if there is delay in preferring appeal. Ignorance of law is not excuse.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015] 61 taxmann.com 244 (Mumbai – CESTAT)- CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH Racold Thermo Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I

[2015-TIOL-1983-CESTAT-MUM] ICICI Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-I