2012 (11) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e decision for filing the appeal whereas during the arguments applicants blame his Counsel. Thus the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for delay. The COD application is dismissed - against assessee.
Mr. S.S. Kang, And Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance Shri R.K. Maheshwari, Proprietor for Appellant Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Superintendent (A.R) for respondent Per : S.S. Kang Heard both sid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Asst. Commissioner and copy to Range Superintendent regarding payment of duty under protest but authority was not decided our protest. After passing three years show cause notice issued on the same issue which is time bar and without deciding our protest letter. Appellant made regular persuation for protest letter but no written communication from department. Appellant was not in a position .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of delay. Regarding the negligence of the learned Counsel of the applicant had not taken any steps such as filing any complaint in the bar counsel. 7. As per the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act the Tribunal has power to condone the delay on showing the sufficient cause are not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. In the present case, as the applicant is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X