Grounds on which condonation is sought appears to be an afterthought as it lacks conviction & is not convincing
AGAINST an O-in-A dated 07/10/2012, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT along with an application seeking condonation of delay and an application for early hearing!
The appellant submitted that the delay of about 74 days in filing the appeal occurred as they were consistently in contact with the Advocate for holding a conference and the Advocate sought certain records for drafting of the appeal, which were not readily available with them; that the documents could be retrieved only by 15/02/2013 and thereafter, after having several rounds of discussion with the Advocate, the appeal could be filed only by 23/04/2013.
The Bench asked the appellant to show the documentary evidence by way of correspondence indicating that the appellant sought conference with the Advocate and the Advocate sought for the records. To this question, the appellant replied - that everything was oral and there is no record of these so-called activities.
The Bench observed that there was no record as to when and where the "several rounds of discussions” took place.
Holding that in the absence of evidence, the plea taken by the appellant is only an afterthought and the explanation given lacks conviction and not convincing, the Bench rejected the COD application and along with it the Stay application and appeal.