2014 (3) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observed that after Shri Hiresh Dhakan left, anybody else could have take necessary action for filing the appeal and even after Shri Pinglay re-joined in May, 2003 there was a delay of about six months in filing the appeal. Considering these facts into account, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. It is for these reason .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 wherein this Tribunal observed as follows: From the records, it is seen that Mr. Pinglay was with the appellant firm all through and therefore, the excuse offered is only an after thought and cannot be accepted. Thus, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay . 3. The contention of the appellant is that the unit M/s. Shree Precoated Steel Ltd., was taken over by Essar Steel Ltd. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ount, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. It is for these reasons, the application for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently the appeal also got rejected. In view of the clear findings recorded by us, we do not find any error committed while passing the impugned order. Therefore, we do not find any merit i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X