9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i B.L. Mena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. There are two applications before us, both filed by the appellant, one for condonation of delay and the other for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery. We take up the first of these applications. 2. Against an adverse order passed by the original authority, the appellant-Company filed an appeal with the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Range Officer on 15-6-2004. This submission is contested by the learned SDR on the strength of a report of the Commissioner (Appeals). We have perused this report, which indicates that the impugned order had been despatched by SPAD (Speed Post Acknowledgement Due) on 19-9-2001 to their office address. (Mount Road, Madras-6). Obviously, the order was not sent to the factory address. Hence the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble presumption. It is open to the appellant to rebut it, but they have failed to do so. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order was received by the appellant in the month of September 2001. The heavy delay of the appeal has not been explained in this application, let alone to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. 4. The learned Consultant has also referred to the alleged delay of post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
