9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... athur for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The prayer in the application is to condone the delay of 388 days in filing the present appeal. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the impugned order was passed on 23.2.2011 and was received by the appellant on 25.2.11 whereas the appeal stand filed by the appellant on 28.6.12. 3. As per the appellant though the impugned order was received on 25.2.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant to engage the advocate nominated by them. The Accounts Officer of the appellant visited Delhi for discussion and preparation of appeal on 2.12.11 and handed over the papers to their advocate on 11.6.12 for preparation of appeal. The same was prepared and ultimately filed before the Tribunal on 28.6.12. 4. As is seen from the above sequence of events put forth by the appellant, the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal were handed over to the Advocate after a period of 6 months i.e. on 11.6.12. 5. The question required to be decided is as to whether the above facts placed before the Tribunal can be held to be sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay or the same reflects upon the casual attitude of the appellant. Admittedly, "sufficient cause" for making the appeals/ applications within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re in the Central Excise Act would become meaningless and redundant. The sufficient cause for condoning such delays should be the one which pursue the Court in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as excusable one, while ensuring that the purpose of law of limitation does not get frustrated. 6. While examining the reasons, it has to necessarily concluded that the same are not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
