9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f delay – Held That:- We do not see how these two facts taken together cannot constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.The appellant ought not to be visited with the drastic consequence of dismissal of the appeal without the same being considered on merits on account of the Advocate/consultant’s default in not having filed the appeal in time. Added to this is the fact that du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the CESTAT was correct in dismissing the appellant s appeal on the ground of delay. 3. The order impugned before the CESTAT was received by the appellant on 04.08.2013. The CESTAT held that there was no explanation for the delay in the original period of 90 days from 04.08.2013. We find, however, that within the original period of limitation, the appellant had, in fact, forwarded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Advocate/consultant s default in not having filed the appeal in time. Added to this is the fact that during the original period of limitation it is not as if the appellant was guilty of any negligence.The appellant was pre-occupied in looking after his ailing brother. 5. In the circumstances, the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant.The appeal is allowed.The impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
