9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocates, they kept on inquiring from them about filing of appeal. Certificate of the concerned advocate to whom papers were handed over is also not available on the record supporting the ground taken by the appellant. Thus reasons put forth by the appellant are not bonafide and the delay could have been easily avoided by them by acting with normal care and caution. COD rejected. - Appeal No. 345 of 2012 - Final Order No. ST/A/55024/2013(PB) - Dated:- 18-12-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mathur, AR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa; The delay in filing the present appeal is of 1043 days. Learned Advocate Shri Bipin Garg ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (SC)] wherein the delay of 883 days was allowed by observing that requisite information was not provided by their advocate on passing of decree ex parte and conduct of appellant not indicating him to be irresponsible litigant. Court further observed that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of Court and length of delay is not relevant and acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. Learned advocate also refer to the Calcutta High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd. [2010 (249) ELT 512 (Cal)]. The delay of 479 days in filing the appeal was condoned by the Hon ble High Court on the ground that Taxation Manager of the Company left the service and Factory Manager was mislead by a photocopy of receipted Form No. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the filing of their appeal cannot be considered to be sufficient and reasonable cause. It does not stand contended by the appellant that after handing over the appeal papers, they made efforts to contact the advocate for receiving the appeal paper. It is also not their case that requisite demand draft was prepared by them well within time of three months provided under the law and handed over to the advocate. In case, we also find that date of handing over the appeal papers also does not stand specified in the COD application. 7. We are aware that length of delay is not important, as held by the various precedent decisions and it is the bonafide of the appellant and sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation which should be the criterion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istance was given to the advocate for drawl of the appeal and for filing the same in the Tribunal. Certificate of the concerned advocate to whom papers were handed over is also not available on the record supporting the ground taken by the appellant. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that reasons put forth by the appellant are not bonafide and the delay could have been easily avoided by them by acting with normal care and caution. In view of the foregoing, we reject the COD application. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned, COD application, stay application as also appeal are also rejected being barred by limitation. 9. All applications and appeal are disposed of in the above manner. (Pronounced in the open Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
