2005 (11) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant. Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - There is a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. The appellant is a proprietary concern. He has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. In the Affidavit, it is stated that the Accountant, Mr. P.J. Das Gupta who received the impugned order had left the company with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCE, Patna (supra). The Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (supra) while granting condonation of delay has held that strict and pedantic view should not be taken in a case where there is no gross negligence on the part of the appellant. The appellant has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons inasmuch as the concerned employee who received the impugned order left the job wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rcular No. 64/13/2003-S.T., dated 28-10-2003 wherein it was clarified that mere space selling does not fall under the category of advertisement services. He relies on several rulings of the Tribunal on the very issue and submits that the issue is covered in favour of the appellants. 4. Heard the learned SDR in the matter. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X