9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent for the appellant. 2. Heard the ld. JDR. He submitted that the duty involvement was Rs. 50,905.00 and with equal amount of penalty followed by interest. The appeal was filed on 27th February, 2007 beyond the statutory period while the impugned order was admittedly received by the appellant on 10-10-2006. The due date for filing the appeal was 9-1-2007 while it was filed on 21-2-2007. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not benefit the litigant but may deprive him from right to justice. Equally, the Tribunal appreciates that scanty regard to law by litigant is not tolerable. The appellant has to come out clearly to prove his bona fides as well as non-deliberate delay making out clear case for relief. In view of these circumstances stated above neither the appellant was found to be vigilant nor proved its bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
