9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. Filing the Appeal with a delay of 180 days, the Appellant also moved an application for condonation of delay stating that the impugned Order was served on a Dealing Assistant of the Appellant on 23-10-2006 and that Assistant left the job in December, 2006 for which the Appellant was prevented from filing the Appeal within the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant also stated that if the Appeal is not admitted, they shall suffer. 2. To examine veracity of the averments of the Appellant, Revenue was called upon to ascertain the facts, and after ascertaining the facts, the same were submitted to the Tribunal stating that the Appellant categorically admitted about service of the Order without averring in the affidavit about the date of service of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing for the Revenue strongly opposed contentions of the Appellant in the Application for condonation of delay as well as their averment in Affidavit and submitted that if a baseless plea of the Appellant is acceptable, that shall cause irreparable injury to Revenue. There was neither any Affidavit from Shri G. Mishra nor from Shri Pratap Maity explaining their role in the delay. But they are on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ledge of the Appellant, as admitted in the application for condonation of delay and that was as early as December, 2006. Even by this date, if sixty days had expired, there was another thirty days at the disposal of the Appellant to prepare its remedy of appeal. But nothing could be explained by the Appellant about the reason of delay from December, 2006 till the date of filing of the Appeal i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
