2013 (10) TMI 1380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)]. - All these applications are arising out of a common impugned order and therefore all are taken up together for disposal. 2. The applicant filed these applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals of 171 days. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that on 6-7-2012, the impugned order was received by them. He drew the atte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the delay occurred and therefore delay may be condoned. He submits that there was no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant. 3. Ld. AR on behalf of Revenue submits that the negligence of the employee cannot be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He submits that it appears from the first affidavit of Mrs. Sarika Nikam that she rejoined the office and in the subsequent affidav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ager of the appellant company that the responsibility of filing appeal was delegated to his assistant Mrs. Sarika B. Nikam, who failed to take timely action due to her ill-health. The ld. AR on behalf of Revenue drew the attention of the Bench to the impugned order against which the appeal has been filed. It is seen that Sri K.V.M. Nair appeared and represented the case before both the lower autho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X