9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was pending before the Tribunal? ii) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal only for non-compliance of the stay order, without examining the merits of the case? iii) Whether the Tribunal, Hyderabad, was correct in dismissing the condonation of delay application, without getting a report on the action taken on the appeal filed against the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal, Bangalore? iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the condonation of delay application without disputing the fact that the appeal was filed on 20.12.2013 against stay application? 2. Heard Mr.Eswar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Laxman, learned Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the appeal for non-compliance with the conditional order passed on 28.11.2013. 8) According to the appellant, he filed two appeals, one against the conditional order passed on 28.11.2013 and another against the order of dismissal of the appeal on 20.12.2013. We do not know what happened to the appeal said to have been filed as against the conditional order passed on 28.11.2013. But the appeal against the dismissal order, dated 20.12.2013, was filed after a delay of 812 days. Therefore, the appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 812 days. 9) The application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the CESTAT by an Order, dated 06.06.2018. It is against the said order that the above appeal has been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only be on a substantial question of law. The order under appeal, is one refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was of the magnitude of 812 days. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the appellant in his application for condonation of delay. The only reason stated by the appellant in his application for condonation of delay was that he was advised that another appeal filed by him as against the conditional order passed on 28.11.2013 would also be taken up together with this appeal. The Tribunal was not satisfied with this reasoning. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the reasoning stated by the appellant, we do not think that any substantial question of law would arise out of such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
