TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel appearing, the application for the condonation of delay needs to be allowed. - ST/41/2009 - 350/2009 - Dated:- 30-6-2009 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This application is filed for condoning the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the delay has occurred due to the fact that there was misplacement of the Order-in-Original by the Counsel i.e. himself. He filed an affidavit in support of such averment. The contents of the said affidavit are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal on 11-12-2008. The memorandum of appeal was sent to the Registrar, CESTAT on 11-12-2008 by speed post. It was received in the office of the CESTAT on 16-12-2008. 3. Subsequently, another letter dated 12-12-2008 was received by our office asking me to remit the appeal fee in the form of DD for Rs.6,000/- and also to enclose copies of the order-in-original No.9/2006 along with appeal papers. True copy of the letter dated 12-12-2008 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure (B). 4. I had remitted the appeal fee of Rs.5,000/- and also the necessary fees of Rs.500/- each towards stay and cod application. I had also produced the certified copy of the order-in-original on …….. 5.There is a delay of 86 days in preferring the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied with the explanation given by the learned Counsel in his affidavit and in person, that the delay has occurred due to the error, which took place in his office. It is settled law that for the error or mistake of a Counsel, an assessee should not suffer and his appeal should not be rejected for the reason of delay in filing the appeal. 7. We find that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) as to that for a mistake due to advocate, the assessee should not be put to hardship by way of rejection of his appeal, having not filed within time. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
