2013 (6) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onation of delay of filing of appeal with 134 days. 2. The learned counsel submits that they have received the impugned order on 10.2.2012 and filed the appeal on 24.9.2012. Thus there is a delay of 134 days. The learned counsel also drew the attention of the Bench to the affidavit of Shri Balasubramaniam, partner of the applicant-firm. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is reproduced bel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . CCE, Rohtak 2009 (242) ELT 576 (Tri. -Del.) (b) Star Drugs & Research Labs Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2005 (191) ELT 568 (Tri.-Chennai) (c) M.C.E. Products Sales Services Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2004 (176) ELT (Tri. Del.) (d) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Reliance Enterprises 2007 (220) ELT 802 (Tri. Mumbai) 4. After hearing both sides, on consideration of the records and on perusal o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in reconstructing the file and thereafter preparing the file for the purpose of filing the appeal the delay has occurred which is not intentional or deliberate and is bona fide on the part of the appellant. 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Magic Fasteners (P) Ltd. (supra), we do not find any sufficient reason for condonation of delay of 134 days in filing the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X