2006 (11) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  This application filled by the Department (Appellant) is for condonation of the delay of 255 days involved in the filling of their appeal. The appeal is against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which was received by the appellant on 16-6-2005. It was actually filed on 29-5-2006, with the above delay. The only explanation for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s point with reference to the chronology of dates relevant to this application. 3. We find that sufficient cause has not been shown by the appellant for condonation of the above inordinate delay of the appeal. It is claimed by the appellant himself that the appeal was filed on the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Central excise, Chennai, whose letter was received by the appellant on 18-4- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... delay of appeal. It is also noticed that more than month's time was taken by the appellant for filing the appeal even after receiving the Chief Commissioner's correspondence. 4. The application for condonation of delay, bereft of sufficient cause, is dismissed and consequently the appeal also gets dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X