2001 (10) TMI 920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. [Order]. All the Miscellaneous Applications are for condoning the delay of about one month in filing the present appeals. 2. The appellants case is that the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-1-2001 was issued on 2-4-2001 and received by the applicants/appellants on and around 9-4-2001 and was handed over by all of them to one Advocate, Smt. Sangita Sengupta for the purposes of fili .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d of July, 2001. The papers were, thereafter, returned to the applicants/appellants. She has also expressed her regret in the said affidavit. 3. Shri D.K. Bhowmick, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue opposes the condonation of delay, and submits that the applicants/appellants should have been more vigilant in pursuing their appeals. 4. In a rejoinder, Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stead, returned the papers to the applicants/appellants. To say the least, this reflects upon the conduct of the Advocate. However, inasmuch as there is nothing contrary on record to show otherwise that the delay has not occurred at the hands of the Advocate, and keeping in view that the applicants/appellants are villagers who are not usually aware of the legal intricacies, I condone the delay in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X