9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal - Held that: - Though it is submitted that the delay occurred due to the reason that an employee named Shri Sriranjan Deshpande left the office of the appellant, the affidavit does not mention the name of this employee. The name of the employee does not find mention in the application for condonation of delay also. When the Director of the Company is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to condone the delay of 860 days in preferring the appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel, Shri Sathish Sunder reiterated the grounds stated in the application. He submitted that it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the proceedings before the first appellate authority has culminated in passing the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 28.08.2014 only during the conduct of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urred. The appellant was aware of the proceedings pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order was passed in 2014 and the same has been despatched to the appellant vide speed post on 08.09.2014. This being so, the appellant cannot turn around to say that they were not aware of the culmination of the appeal before the first appellate authority and seek condonation of delay stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chaos with regard to books of accounts as they remained unreconciled. That only after completion of reorganization, it came to the notice of the company that an amount of ₹ 3,58,253 being the refund claim pertaining to the appeal remain unreconciled. On perusal of this affidavit as well as grounds stated in the application, I find the appellant was aware of the appeal pending before the Firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
