9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member, (J)]. In this application for condonation of delay, the delay sought to be condoned is 178 days beyond the normal period requires to be filed the appeal. The impugned order was served on the appellants on 30th June, 2001. Three months time ended on 30th September, 2001. This appeal has been filed on 27th March, 2002. The appellants have refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gality of levy of CVD on the item Damar-Batu. Only after another Commissioner took a different view in the case of Srinivasa Trading Company the appellants thought they can file an appeal against their order. This is a clear case of negligence. The appellants should have taken steps to file their appeal in time. They have accepted the Commissioner s order. Only when another matter was decided favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) would apply to the facts of the present case. Applying the ratio of the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra) the application for condonation is rejected and as a consequence the appeal is also rejected. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
