9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for condoning the delay and therefore, the CESTAT was not right in rejecting the said application. - CESTAT directed to number the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law - decided in favor of assesssee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1777 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2014 - N. Paul Vasanthakumar And M. Sathyanarayanan,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N. Viswanathan For the Respondents : Mr. V. Sundareswaran Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by M. Sathyanarayanan,J.) Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main appeal, itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act to condone the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal. 4. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said application, it has been stated among other things that the daughter of the Director of the appellant Company, who was then working as a clinical embryologist was suffering due to Pneumonia and was taking treatment in a private hospital at Mangalore and she died due to the said ailment of Pneumonia on 16.11.2012 and further stated that on account of the same, he was not in a position to attend the day to-day business affairs of the Company, which remained unattended for a very long time and therefore, the delay occurred. It has also been specifically stated that the person, who was in-charge of dealing with the legal issues, left the Company i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant right of appeal would be totally defeated and that justice would be denied to the appellant by refusing to condone the delay? 7. Heard the submissions of Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. By perusal of the averments stated in the application filed for condonation of delay, more particularly, paragraphs 3 and 4, would disclose that the daughter of the Director of the appellant Company was suffering from Pneumonia and she died on 16.11.2012 and also the person, who is looking after the legal issues of the appellant Company had left the services and therefore, the administration of the Company could not be carried on, on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
