9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President]. Heard. 2. Shri Arun V. Bakre, ld. Advocate present for the appellant and Shri Manish Mohan, ld. SDR present for Respondent. 3. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. The only ground on which the delay of 105 days is sought to be condoned is that, firstly in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. There is no dispute about this fact. 5. It is seen that the operative portion of the order refers to Shri Anil Vinod Mehta for the purpose of imposition of penalty whereas the reasoning portion of the impugned order refers to the appellant, whose name is Shri Anish Vinod Mehta. It is also not in dispute that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant, Shri Anish Vinod Mehta. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for filing the appeal, it was necessary for the appellant to explain as to what prevented him from procuring the services of the Advocate till the last week of November. Nothing is stated in this regard in the application. 6. The condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The Tribunal can condone the delay in filing the appeal provided sufficient cause is shown for the delay. Mere vague al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng such a period does not arise at all. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected on this ground. Even otherwise on merits, though it was contended on behalf of the appellant that he has very good case, findings arrived at by the authority below in relation to the case of the appellant reads as :- He was one of the Directors of the Unit upto 4-9-2003. He opened the bank accounts of the un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
