9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no deliberate delay or latches on the part of the appellant and the delay was caused due to mix-up of the documents of this appellant with the files of other clients in the office of the Counsel. It is just and proper to condone the delay, in the interest of justice - Application allowed. - Customs Condonation of Delay Application No.50768 of 2019 (on behalf of the appellant) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal. 2. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent Revenue on the COD application. 3. Ld. Counsel urges that the appellant had entrusted him with the case papers, but the said papers got intermingled with the file of some other client in his office inadvertently. Thereafter, the ld. Counsel made efforts by contacting his several cli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they were having the file of the appellant with them, which appears might have reached them along with their files returned by the office of the Counsel. Thus, the delay is fully attributable to the error on the part of the Counsel and his office. 5. Further, Mr. Amit Ahuja, Proprietor, RA Enterprises has also sworn Affidavit dated 20.11.2019 in support of the contention of the appellant. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein this Tribunal in the case of delay of 1390 days, wherein also the impugned order was received in the normal time, this Tribunal recorded a finding that inordinate delay of 3 years and 10 months has not been sufficiently explained with sufficient cause and thus, the COD application was dismissed along with the appeal and also placed reliance in the case of S. Xavier Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
