2007 (2) TMI 548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. [Order]. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of filing appeal of 190 days. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that in this case, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 20,06,464/- and imposed penalty of equal amount. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 20-2-2006 modified the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate advised the applicants not to file appeal against the impugned order by its letter dated 5-4-2006 informed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise that they have already deposited the entire amount of duty and penalty of 25% of duty along with interest in terms of the impugned order and they also asked for refund of the excess amount of duty. The learned Advocate submits that by letter da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal cannot be condoned. He further submits that the applicant is totally negligent and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the learned Advocate filed affidavit stating that he has advised the applicant to submit letter dated 5-4-2006 to the department. It is revealed from the record that the applicant received the i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X