9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the present appeal. The order impugned before us was passed by the Commissioner on 30.11.99 confirming demand of duty of Rs. 43,14,621.00 and imposing a personal penalty of an equivalent amount. The said order, according to the appellant was received by them on 28.2.2000. The appellants were required to file an appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... di, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, strongly opposes the condonation of delay application on the ground that the order was received by the appellants in February 2000. Even taking into account the fact that Sinha to whom the papers were handed over could not prepare the appeal on account of his being ill and ultimately expired on 5.7.2000, the appellants have not explained the delay thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal papers were required to be signed by the authorised representative of the appellant company. As such the appellants were in a position to know that the appeal has not been prepared and filed before the Tribunal inasmuch as they were not asked to sign on the papers. Inspite of this fact they had not bothered to keep a track for the papers even after expiry of Shri Sinha on 5.7.2000. They h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
