Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mr. Rajesh Balar vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... on 24 May, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: C/COD/21263/2014 in C/21144/2014-SM C/Stay/21264/2014 in C/21144/2014-SM Appeal(s) Involved: C/21144/2014-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 179/2011 dated 09/11/2011 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS, BANGALORE ] Mr. Rajesh Balar E-6, 6th Floor, ALSA Court, ALSA Garden, No.72, Gilchrist Avenue, Harrington Road, Chetpet, CHENNAI 600031. TN Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Bangalore - Cus. C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None A.K. JAYARAJ NEW NO 234, OLD NO 217, THAMBU CHETTY STREET, I&II FLOOR, CHENNAI - 600001 TAMILNADU For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy N.K, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 24/05/2017 Date of Decision: 24/05/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20776 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 756 days in filing the present appeal. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the previous occasions also, none appeared on behalf of the appellant and on 12.4.2017, last adjournment notice was given to the appellant to appear and argue the case. Today also nobody has appeared, therefore, I proceed to decide the COD application in the absence of the appellant.
2. The appellant has stated in the application that he was not well and suffering from depression and neurosis and had taken treatment for that and he was also hospitalized. He has further stated that because of the medical treatment, he could not attend office regularly and even attend to day-to-day work and he did not have second help to monitor such type of time bound applications and the receipt of the order escaped his notice and surfaced after a long time.
3. On the other hand, the learned AR has appeared and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the present appeal and the appellant has not given sufficient reasons for such a long delay in filing the application. He further submitted that the applicant is casual in pursuing the present case before the Court and he has not appeared on many occasions when the case was listed and on the last occasion, last chance was given to the appellant to appear and argue the matter and in spite of that, the appellant has not appeared. In support of his submission that delay has not been properly explained by sufficient evidence, he relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Xavier vs. CESTAT, Chennai: 2015 (316) ELT 589.
4. After going through the records and submissions of learned AR, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to explain such an inordinate delay of 756 days in filing the appeal and therefore, I am not inclined to condone such an inordinate delay and consequently, dismiss the COD application. As a result of dismissal of COD application, stay petition as well as the main appeal is also dismissed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 24/05/2017.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3