In Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhilai (Cg v. As An Upshot, The Appeai Is Liable To Be And Is Hereby Dismissed.no Order Asto Costs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH,.•••h^^lnn Pi^^i&l"TENT^Z^... ysi^p^^ ^^^siis ^^^£A'UNDER SECTION 35 (G) OF THE GUSTQMS^eT, 1944f A^si^ O^OP^W AfPeAL.no'2^0^o^.{M/S Mithilesh & Co., ThroughSantosh Agarwal, AuthorizedSignatory, Aged about 51 year^,S/o Shri S.K. Agarwal, R/o304/3, Shyam Vatika, ChoubeyColony, Raipur, CG/1.CCERaipur,OfficeofCommissioner,CenfaralExciseand Customs, Civil Lines, Raipur(CG)2.The Customs Excise & ServriceTax Appellate Tribunal throughRegistrar, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066^cv^^StSL ^-•Kcij-^ftchMlSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 35 (G) OF THE GUSTOMO ACT, 1944 Q HIGHCOURT OF CMHATTISGARH :BILASPURDivision Bench :Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri &Hon'bleShri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. TaxCaseNo.12of2011 APPELLANTM/s Mithilesh & Co.VersusRESPONDENTSCCE Raipur & Another (Appeal under Section 35-G ofthe Central Excise Act, 1944) Present:-Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Maneesh Sharma & Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocates for therespondents. QRDER (Passed on this 8th dayof December, 2011) 1.This is an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Aet,1944 (for short "the Act,1944") arising from the order dated11-6-2008 passed bythe Customs, Excise & Service Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal").1944 (for short "the Act,1944") arising from the order dated11-6-2008 passed bythe Customs, Excise & Service Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"). 2.The appealwasdismissedbytheTribunalforwantofnon-compliance of the terms of the stay order No.172/08-Ex dated25-1-2008 3.The instant appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 936days.The grounds taken in the application (I.A.No.5) for conditionof delay are as under: ".....becQuseofsomeunavoidablefunctions in the family the same wastransmittedtothelocalcounselatRaipur aftera period oftime and later onafter consultation the satne was sent tothe counsel at Bilaspurto do the needfuland meanwhilethe limitation period of 6months was over. .....it was found that for non-productionofcertainrelevantdocumentsandorders this appeal was npt filed and onlywhen the notice of demand to defaulterwasissuedtotheappellant afteraperiod of two (2) years of the order, theappellant came to know about the actionbeinginitiatedagainsttheappellantThat the appellant coordinated with itscounsel from New Delhi and Raipurandprocured all the relevant documents for /: Gowri filing the present appeal and preferredthis appeal so that the earlier lack ofcoordinationcouldnothampertheproceeding." In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhilai (CG) v. M/s SewaSingh Oberai & Company, Durg (CG)1, this Court relying on thedecisions ofthe Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Taxv.Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. and Lanka Venkateshwarlu (Dead) By Lrs.V. State ofAndhra Pradesh &0thers3, held that "for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal, theaFpellant has to give sufficient causeexplaining the delay, step by step.In normal course,the deiayshould be explained on dayto day basis." In view offoregoing, we do not find any reasons, more so sufficientreasons, enabling this Courtto condone the delay. Even ofherwise,there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed bythe Tribunal. The same is just & proper and doe6 not warrant anyinterference of this Court. As an upshot, the appeai is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.No order asto costs. Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge Sd/-R.S. SharmaJudge 12MANU/SC/0831/2011 Tax Case No.44 of 2011 (decided on 19-10-2011)2MANU/SC/0831/2011 Tax Case No.44 of 2011 (decided on 19-10-2011) 3 (2011)48cc 363 (2011)48cc 363