9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T)]. In this application for condonation of delay, the applicants, M/s. M.P. Iron Steel Co., have prayed for condoning the delay of 347 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25-1-2000 which was received by the appellants on 1-2-2000. The appeal was received in the Registry on 18-4-2001. In the application for COD, it has been mentioned as under - 1. The applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10392, dated 9-2-2000. 3. Once the applicants had sent the relevant papers for filing the appeal they were under the bona fide belief that the appeal would have been filed in CEGAT, New Delhi. 4. It is further submitted that the unit of the applicants had been lying closed since 15-10-1998 and in March, 2000, the M.P. Government gave the closure permission to the applicants, for closing down t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the appeal filed before the CEGAT, New Delhi. At this stage, the applicants on contacting their lawyers came to know that the papers had been misplaced and therefore, no appeal was actually filed in the CEGAT. 8. In view of the above situation, the applicants are filing the present appeal with a delay of 347 days, which was caused due to the misplacing of the relevant papers by the courier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as well as the appeal is dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned Counsel refers to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Kolar Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore, 2000 (93) ECR 311 (T). We find that each case of condonation of delay has to be examined on its own merits and no general view could be taken. We do not find and consider that this decision will be applicable to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
