9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant for condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the delay has arisen due to the reason that the applicant was given wrong advise by the advocate. It is his submission that the applicant received the OIA on 23-10-2008 and on 27-10-2008 the applicant approached the advocate and after delive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Commissioner (Appeals) as regards their bona fides on the issue. He would rely upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag v. MST Katiji and Others [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.)] and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.)], and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Plywood Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. We find that the applicant is not able to give justifiable reasons for the delay in approaching his advocate even after a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The averments made by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay that they had approached the advocate immediately on receipt of the OIA are unsubstantiated. 4. In view of this, we find that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
