9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if we accept that one of the partners was not in a position to act, admittedly the other partner was. It has not been shown to us that Mrs. Shikka Agarwal was continuously on bed throughout her pregnancy period and was in such a bad shape so as not to take steps for filing of the appeal - Mrs. Sikha Agarwal gave birth to child in December, 2012 where appeal stands filed in June, 2013 that is alm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filing of appeal was August, 2012 whereas the appeal should have been filed on 13-4-2012. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is a partnership concern. Mrs. Shikha Agarwal, one of the partners pregnant and delivered a child in December, 2012. Thereafter she was busy to look after the infant and could not file the appeal in time. However on being que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was held condonable. Similarly the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manoj Processors v. Union of India reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 85 (Guj.) held that the delay of 84 days in filing appeal on the ground of illness of sole proprietor of petitioner-company had to be condoned. Further Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishanlal Meghraj Soni v. Collector of Customs reported in 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was. It has not been shown to us that Mrs. Shikka Agarwal was continuously on bed throughout her pregnancy period and was in such a bad shape so as not to take steps for filing of the appeal. 7. In any case, we note that Mrs. Sikha Agarwal gave birth to child in December, 2012 where appeal stands filed in June, 2013 that is almost after six months after the delivery. The appellant s plea that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
