2006 (11) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... na, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. We have heard both sides on the application for condonation of delay of 924 days in filing the above appeal. 2. We note that the applicant had filed writ petition against the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) before the Hon ble Bombay High Court which was ultimately disposed of vide order dated 18-3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... after the High Court Order and the explanation given viz, that the Revisionary Authority rejected her Revision Application only by order dated 29-8-2006 and therefore, the present appeal could not be filed prior to that date, has no merit in the light of the liberty granted by the High Court to the company and its Director to file appeals before the Tribunal. We therefore, see no reason to condone .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X