THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG v. M/S LAMARE AND COMPANY
MC (CentralExciseAp)/4/2024 · 2025-02-17
B Bhattacharjee, H S Thangkhiew
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1231 (MEG) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1231 (MEG) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 01 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
MC Central Excise Ap. No. 4 of 2024
Date of Decision: 17.02.2025
The Commissioner of Central Goods and …. Applicant(s) Services Tax and Central Excise, Shillong Commissionerate, Crescens Building, Manatma Gandhi Road, Shillong-793001.
Versus
M/s Lamare & Company, Vill-Thangskai, P.O. Lumshnong, District-Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya-786145
… Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance: For the Applicant(s)
: Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)
: Mr. D. Sahu, Adv. with
Ms. M. Gogoi, Adv.
2025:MLHC:76-DB
__________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication
Yes/No
in press: Per. H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge: (ORAL)
1.
This is an application for condonation of delay of 165 days, in filing the appeal against the CESTAT final order dated 16.10.2023.
2.
It is submitted by Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang, learned counsel for the applicant that the considerable delay that has occurred was primarily due to the fault of the learned counsel, in preparing the draft memo of appeal and that from the part of the Department also, 3(three) months’ time had been taken in considering the matter.
3. Vehement objections has been raised by Mr. D. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who submits that sufficient cause has not been shown in seeking the condonation. He therefore, submits that as no ground has been made out, the condonation application should be rejected. 2025:MLHC:76-DB
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the reasons as placed. Though considerable delay has occurred as submitted by the learned DSGI, the counsel who prepared the appeal was also instrumental for the cause of delay.
5. Accordingly, for the fault of the counsel, the applicant should not suffer. As such, the delay of 165 days is condoned. Registry to diarize and register the appeal for admission hearing.
6. This Misc. Case stands disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee)
(H.S. Thangkhiew) JUDGE
JUDGE
Meghalaya 17.02.2025
“V. Lyndem PS”
2025:MLHC:76-DB Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2025.02.17 17:08:37 IST