Gujarat High Court
Neo Structo Construction Ltd vs Customs Excise And Service on 25 July, 2013
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sonia Gokani
NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD....Appellant(s)V/SCUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL O/TAXAP/226/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 226 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH -sd/- and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI -sd/- ============================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ============================================= NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD....Appellant(s) Versus CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL & 1....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR ANAND NAINAWATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 25/07/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Present Tax Appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein-original appellants challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Customs and Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CESAT ) dated 24.8.2012, by which, the Tribunal has dismissed Miscellaneous Application submitted by the appellant, which was submitted to condone the delay of 319 days in preferring the appeal.
2.0. Having heard Shri Nainawati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.J. Oza, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the department and considering the impugned order passed by the learned CESAT, it appears that in the present case CESAT has rejected the application submitted by the appellants to condone the delay relying upon their own order passed in another application, with respect to the very assessee, by which, the learned Tribunal declined to condone the delay. It is not in dispute that against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 2.7.2012 passed in No.A/971/WZB/AHD/201, upon which, the reliance has been placed by the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant preferred Tax Appeal No.293 of 2013 before this Court and this Court by judgment and order dated 27.6.2013 has allowed the said appeal by condononing the delay and has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law and on merits.
3.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 27.6.2013 passed in Tax Appeal No.293 of 2013, present Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 24.8.2012 passed in A/1292/WZB/AHD/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay caused in preferring appeal arising out of OIA No.RKA/198/SRT-I/2011 is hereby condoned and now the Appellate Tribunal to decide and dispose of the appeal and the application therein, if any, in accordance with law and on merits. Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/-
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Kaushik Page 3 of 3