2011 (5) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . It is only subsequently when the present Consultant guided the appellant that appeal should have been filed against the impugned order they accordingly filed the same – Held that:- action on the part of the appellant can not be a reasonable and justifiable ground for condoning the delay, delay is not condoned, the appeal filed by the appellant rejected as barred by limitation - ST/655/2010 - A/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal was not filed. It is only subsequently when the present Consultant guided the appellant that appeal should have been filed against the impugned order they accordingly filed the same. 3. Ld. S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue opposes the prayer for condonation of delay, inasmuch as no justifiable reason exists for the same. 4. I find that admittedly, the appeal against the impugned order was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X