9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independent orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). There is a delay in both these appeals, hence the Commissioner has filed applications for condonation of delay. As the issue of delay pertains to both the appeals for consideration, therefore, both the applications are taken up for consideration. 2. In the application pertaining to M/s. Titan Industries Ltd., the delay is of 100 days. The Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order cannot revise their view after the belated period and the same is not sufficient ground for condoning the delay. He further contends that no explanation has been given for the delay from the date of decision of the Board to file an appeal i.e. 10-2-2000 to 30-5-2000, when the appeal was filed and there was enormous delay. He submits that when there is no explanation for more than 100 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that these judgments have been taken into consideration by this very Bench for dismissing the Revenue appeals as in the case of Commissioner v. Moon Impex vide Final Order No. 715/2000 dated 31-5-2000, [2001 (136) E.L.T. 475 (Tribunal)] wherein large number of other judgments have been noted. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application and as a consequence the appeal also. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra and also that of CC v. Shreeji CT Scan Centre (P) Ltd. vide Final Order No. 686/2000, dated 24-5-2000. Therefore, he submits that in view of these settled position of law, the reasons given by the Revenue are not sufficient for condoning the delay. 6. We have carefully considered these submissions. In the case of Titan Industries, the Commissioner had accepted the order passed by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
