1999 (8) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Lamba, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - Applications for condonation of delay of approximately 13 months have been filed by the Revenue whose contention is that since the appeal against the order passed in respect of one of the respondents namely, M/s. Sat Electronics was filed in time, the present appeals are required to be treated as supplementary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al was filed beyond the period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order passed under Section 129D(1), and having regard to the language of Section 129D(4), there is no provision for condonation of delay in such circumstances. Therefore we hold that the delay is not required to be condoned and accordingly reject the applications for condonation of delay. Appeals are dismissed as time .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X