2012 (8) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, SDR for the Respondent   Per Ashok Jindal   The appellants have filed these appeals along with stay applications and applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Admittedly, in these matters appeals have been filed on 17.4.2006. The contention of the appellants is that they have not been served the Orders-in-Original. In these matters there are two Orders-in-Original .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h of the Orders-in-Original which has been verified and found to be correct.   3. In rebuttal to the objection raised by the learned AR, the learned counsel submits that the correct address of the appellant is   M/s. DCP Associates Pvt. Ltd.   GH 13/221   Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110 087.   Therefore, the impugned orders were never served upon the appellants.   .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd they have not filed the appeal in time.   6. In view of the above, we do not find any satisfactory reason explained by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In view of these observations, the applications filed for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the stay applications and the appeals are also dismissed.   (Dictated and pronounced in open co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X