Sh. Deen Mohammed Vs. Cce

Sh. Deen Mohammed vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 28, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46710

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/46710
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Das
Decided On: Dec 28, 2007
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sh. Deen Mohammed

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2008)(127)ECC78

Excerpt

1. the applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 174 days. none appeared on behalf of the applicant. by letter dated 25.12.2007, the applicant requested to decided the matter in their absence on the basis of records.2. heard the learned dr on behalf of the revenue and perused the records.3. it is seen from the application for condonation of delay that the applicant was out of town during the material period and the order was received by the worker. it is stated that the worker did not inform the applicant about the receipt of the impugned order. it is also stated that when the departmental officer approached the applicant for depositing the penalty amount then it came to the knowledge of the applicant of service of the order.4. i find that the applicant is partnership firm and the representative of the applicant firm received the order. the delay in filing of appeal was occurred due to failure to inform the applicant by his representative which cannot be ground for condonation of delay of filing appeal. i find that there is no reasonable ground for condonation of delay of filing the appeal and, therefore, application is dismissed. accordingly, the stay application and appeal are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 174 days. None appeared on behalf of the applicant. By letter dated 25.12.2007, the applicant requested to decided the matter in their absence on the basis of records.

2. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records.

3. It is seen from the application for condonation of delay that the applicant was out of town during the material period and the order was received by the worker. It is stated that the worker did not inform the applicant about the receipt of the impugned order. It is also stated that when the departmental officer approached the applicant for depositing the penalty amount then it came to the knowledge of the applicant of service of the order.

4. I find that the applicant is partnership firm and the representative of the applicant firm received the order. The delay in filing of appeal was occurred due to failure to inform the applicant by his representative which cannot be ground for condonation of delay of filing appeal. I find that there is no reasonable ground for condonation of delay of filing the appeal and, therefore, application is dismissed. Accordingly, the stay application and appeal are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Sh. Deen Mohammed vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge P Das