Deep Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc and Ce - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....in the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar as appeal had been filed belatedly after 69 days. he has noted in the impugned order that the order-in-original was served on the appellants firm and the reason given that the same was not brought to the notice of the managing director by the dealing assistant to be a clear case of wilful negligence on their part, hence there was no ground for condoning the delay.3. we have heard ld. advocate shri g. sampath who submits that the delay ought to have been condoned in the light of large number of supreme court judgments wherein it has been held that appellants do not gain by not filing the appeal in time. ld. advocate submits that the duty involvement in this case is rs. 2,017.50 which is not liable to be paid and seeks for condonation of delay.4. ld. dr submits that the commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred as the dealing assistant has not filed any affidavit also giving reasons as to why it was not brought to the notice of the managing director. the laches are clear. he submits that the amount was only rs. 2,017.50. it is a clear case where the appellants have chosen not to file an.....

Judgment:

1. This appeal and stay application lie in a short compass and hence the matter was taken-up and heard.

2. The Commissioner in the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar as appeal had been filed belatedly after 69 days. He has noted in the impugned order that the order-in-original was served on the appellants firm and the reason given that the same was not brought to the notice of the Managing Director by the dealing Assistant to be a clear case of wilful negligence on their part, hence there was no ground for condoning the delay.

3. We have heard Ld. Advocate Shri G. Sampath who submits that the delay ought to have been condoned in the light of large number of Supreme Court judgments wherein it has been held that appellants do not gain by not filing the appeal in time. Ld. advocate submits that the duty involvement in this case is Rs. 2,017.50 which is not liable to be paid and seeks for condonation of delay.

4. Ld. DR submits that the Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred as the dealing Assistant has not filed any affidavit also giving reasons as to why it was not brought to the notice of the Managing Director. The laches are clear. He submits that the amount was only Rs. 2,017.50. It is a clear case where the appellants have chosen not to file an appeal in time. Hence as the issue is inconsequential, the appeal be dismissed on time bar. He further submits that in terms of proviso to Section 35B of the Act, an appeal involving less than Rs. 50,000/- could not be entertained by the appellants.

5. At this stage, Ld. advocate submits that this provision is not applicable as the issue in the present case pertains to value addition of the drums.

6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we are satisfied with the reasons given by the Commissioner in rejecting the appeal as time barred as it is noticed that delay of 69 days was not explained. The only reason given was that dealing Assistant had not brought to the notice of the Managing Director. This is not a ground for seeking condonation of delay as the laches is patent and apparent. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. Further as the amounts are also very insignificant, the stay application as also the appeal is dismissed.