9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, seeks condonation of the delay of their appeal, which is seen estimated as 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. 2. Today there is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. On the previous occasion (15/10/2012), the counsel for the appellant had proposed to file a copy of the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The appellant has got to explain the actual delay of around 225 days. The present application seeks to explain the delay of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. In this connection, it has been submitted that an application was filed with the Commissioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 25/08/2011 seeking rectification of certain mistake in the impugned order. Later on, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011. 5. Having considered the above facts presented before me by both sides, I am not inclined to allow the present application, for the following reasons: (a) The actual delay of appeal is around 225 days but the appellant has not even attempted to explain the delay in excess of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. (b) As per Section 86(3) of the Act, the appellant ought to have fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on does not stand to reason inasmuch as the Commissioners order dt. 31/12/2010 itself was accompanied by a preamble which advised the appellant to appeal to this Tribunal within 3 months, if aggrieved. The provisions of Section 86(3) of the Act coupled with the advisory preamble to the impugned order were enough to make it incumbent on the appellant to file the appeal within the statutory period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
