9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received by the concerned employee of the company, but no process was initiated thereafter in filing the appeal by the applicant. The reason given by the applicant for filing the appeal after such an inordinate delay is that the employee did not bring it to the notice of the management. This reason is not justified in law for condoning such an inordinate delay - delay not condoned - appeal dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Four only) [after adjusting the pre-deposit of ₹ 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only)] imposed vide Order-in-Original No.03/2010 dated 16.07.2010. It has further been stated in the application that the concerned employee who was handling the litigation matters of the company had not kept the concerned management informed about the Order-in-Appeal No.529/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India [2015 (326) E.L.T. 532 (Guj.)] b) Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai [2004 (176) E.L.T. 24 (SC)] c) Bradma of India Ltd. Vs. CC, Hyderabad [2001 (133) E.L.T. 718 (Tri.-Chennai)] 4. On the other hand the learned AR vehemently opposed the application on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .)] e) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2013 (32) S.T.R. 92 (Tri. -Del.)] 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the impugned order was passed on 31.12.2013 and the copy of the same was received by the concerned employee of the company, but no process was initiated thereafter in filing the appeal by the applicant. The reason given b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
