9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kshmi (2013 (5) TMI 429 - CESTAT MUMBAI) held that the concerned clerk kept the impugned order in the file and did not bring it to the knowledge of the management as the negligence of the employee and is not sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. In the case of (2001 (9) TMI 693 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI), it is held that delay due to leaving of the job by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on 7.2.2012 and filed the appeal on 3.8.2012. It is submitted that their employee looking after the service tax matters left the job, as a result of which, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. In support of her contention, she filed an affidavit of the Director of the company. The learned counsel submits that the delay was caused due to the concerned employee leaving the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he knowledge of the management as the negligence of the employee and is not sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. In the case of (supra), it is held that delay due to leaving of the job by the dealing clerk in excise matter is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay of appeal filed beyond the normal period. 4.After considering the overall facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
