9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed against OIA No.SRP/04/DMN/2013-14, dt.02.04.2013. 2. The first appellate authority had rejected the appeal filed by the appellant before him as time barred as a delay of 24 days was not found to be condonable. 3. Shri R.K. Jain (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that on merit, they have a very strong case. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e job, cannot be considered a proper reason for condoning the delay and that there was no serious attempt by the appellant to explain delay with proper evidences. It is also seen from the present stay application filed by the appellant that no documentary evidence/affidavit has been enclosed to the fact as to when the concerned employee left the job and as to why appellant could not file the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) has not referred to any of the reasons which might have been disclosed by the appellant or which could be said to be reasonable and justifiable for condonation of delay. At the same time the appellant is also unable to point out any sufficient cause for such delay apart from saying that the General Manager of the appellant company was bedridden during the relevant perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its there is absolutely no case for interference, no purpose would be served in restoring the appeal and the application. 8. From the above case law, it is clear that a person seeking condonation of delay has to give full justification with documentary evidence as to why the delay in filing appeal should be condoned. From the facts available on record, it is observed that the appellant has shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
