Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesThis Is Why Meghalaya High Court Condones Delay Of 165 Days In...

This Is Why Meghalaya High Court Condones Delay Of 165 Days In Filing Central Excise Appeal

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Meghalaya High Court has condoned the delay of 165 days in filing central excise appeal.

The bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew and Justice B. Bhattacharjee has observed that due to the fault of the counsel, in preparing the draft memo of appeal for which the applicant should not suffer.

The assesseee has filed the application for condonation of delay of 165 days, in filing the appeal against the CESTAT final order.
The applicant contended that the considerable delay that has occurred was primarily due to the fault of the counsel, in preparing the draft memo of appeal and that from the part of the Department also, 3months’ time had been taken in considering the matter.

The respondent/department contended that sufficient cause has not been shown in seeking the condonation. As no ground has been made out, the condonation application should be rejected.

The court held that the applicant should not suffer. As such, the delay of 165 days is condoned. 

Case Details

Case Title: The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise Versus M/s Lamare & Company

Case No.: MC Central Excise Ap. No. 4 of 2024

Date: 17.02.2025

Counsel For Appellant: N. Mozika

Counsel For Respondent: D. Sahu

Read More: Urban Ladder Home Décor Not Liable To TDS On Remittances To Facebook, Amazon Web-Services For Advertisements: Karnataka High Court

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

NCLT Quashed ROC’s Rejection of DIR-12, Directs Fresh Verification in Director Removal Dispute

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that while the Registrar...

Religious References Alone Can’t Deny S. 80G Approval: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an...

Reopening for AY 2015-16 Invalid After Six-Year Limitation: ITAT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a...

Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes SVLDRS Rejection, Directs Fresh Consideration of Interest Waiver Claim

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order rejecting a taxpayer’s application...

More like this

NCLT Quashed ROC’s Rejection of DIR-12, Directs Fresh Verification in Director Removal Dispute

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that while the Registrar...

Religious References Alone Can’t Deny S. 80G Approval: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an...

Reopening for AY 2015-16 Invalid After Six-Year Limitation: ITAT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a...