TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal; and when they are able to retrieve the records etc., are not even mentioned in the affidavit. A very bald allegation is made that the concerned official left the appellant and relevant records could not be placed, it cannot be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and in that view of the matter the order of the CESTAT is unexceptionable and does not involve any substantial question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application being ST/Misc./62/2010 to condone the delay of 85 days. In support of the application, the appellant alleged that the concerned official dealing with the files left the service; the matter related to old period; and the appellant could not locate the files and other material for filing appeal in time. The learned CESTAT considered this aspect an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt sitting in appeal or revision against such an order has to independently consider the application for condonation of delay. Applying this test, on perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application filed before the CESTAT, we are convinced that the delay sought to be condoned is very vague. The basic averments, as to when the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received; when the concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
