9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supdt. Commissioner (Appeals) committed no mistake while delivering the O-I-A at the said address. It is also perused that 1/12, Ranthambore Complex, M.P Nagar, Bhopal is the address of Mr.Hariom Jatiya, who is none but the Managing Director of the applicant/appellant. The Subsequent plea of delay on account of correspondence for seeking clarification about order number also retains no significance, it merely being a typographical error. The reason taken in the application is not only held to be false, but is held to be misleading one. In the present case since the applicant/appellant was very much aware of the show cause notice served upon him and the subsequent adjudication, the benefit of discretionary relief cannot be extended in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) the said letter was replied vide letter dated 6th of February, 2018 confirming that O-I-A No. 06 has wrongly been mentioned and the order against the applicant is the one bearing No.04/JC/BPL-ST/ST/2015. Hence, the appeal thereafter could have been filed resulting into the delay of 370 days. It is impressed upon by the ld. Counsel by the applicant/ appellant that the delay occurred due to the reasonable cause duly explained as above and has accordingly prayed for the application to be allowed. 3. While rebutting these arguments, ld. D.R. has submitted that the reasons taken in the application are wrong. The address pertains to appellant itself and appellant was appearing before the adjudicating authorities below, taking the plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was communicated at the wrong address and could not be made available to the applicant appellant is apparently false. 5. The Subsequent plea of delay on account of correspondence for seeking clarification about order number also retains no significance, it merely being a typographical error. The reason taken in the application is not only held to be false, but is held to be misleading one. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwan Singh vs. Jagdish Singh 2010 (4) CCC 551 (SC) has held that delay is just one of the ingredients, which has to be considered while condonation of delay. Court, in addition, must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties, bonafide reasons for delay and whether such delay would easil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
