2000 (8) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order Per S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This is a Revenue appeal in which the Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The Commissioner has stated that the matter had been referred to the Chemical Examiner for his opinion as early as 2-5-2000 and his opinion had been communicated only on 6-6-2000. As there wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondents. 4. He contends that in the request for condonation of delay, sufficient reasons have to be given and the Tribunal and the Hon ble Supreme Court on similar reasons given by the Revenue did not condone the delay as in the case of CCE v. Tata Yodogawa Limited reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739. He contends that this decision has been followed by the Tribunal in the case reported in 2000 (1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X