9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants seeking condonation of delay of three years, two months and forty-two days in filing the appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 16-3-2001. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the impugned order was communicated to the appellants only on 6-7-2004 and earlier to that, they did not receive any order from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) or from their advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel to whom they authorized to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) till March, 2002. They even also did not get any information from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the result of their appeal and that later on, they entrusted the case to Shri P.S. Chaudhary, Consultant in April, 2002 who sent letters to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter a copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was supplied to their subsequent Consultant, by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Even Shri N.K. Dagga, the Managing Director of the appellants company in his affidavit has nowhere categorically alleged that no copy of the order was received at their factory. He has simply deposed that he could not enter the factory due to labour problem. The letter dated 20-10-2004 addressed by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the order was received by the appellants, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the apex court in the case of Bharat Nand Lal Katyani v. CCE [1997 (94) E.L.T. A251]. No sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of inordinate delay of over three years in filing the appeal by the appellants. Therefore, the COD application of the appellants is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
