9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - When the petitions for stay came up for hearing it was submitted by ld. DR that there is delay in filing the appeal and that there is no application filed by the appellant to condone the delay. The Order-in-Appeal is dated 30-8-2001 and according to Revenue it was served on the appellant on 1-9-2001. Ld. Dr sought to support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi High Court, it would not have omitted to file an appeal before the Tribunal taking the stand that the order was not served. 2. Taking into consideration the above facts submitted on behalf of the appellant and the nature of the documents produced by the Revenue, we find that the contention raised by the appellant cannot be totally rejected. Under these circumstances we take a view in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to come to a conclusion against the appellant and since those decisions are no longer good law in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order impugned cannot survive. We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of the appeals itself.
4. The petition for dispensing with the condition for pre-deposit is allowed. We set aside the order impugned and allow the appeals. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
