2012 (11) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .S. Kang   Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this application for condoning the delay of 486 days in filing the appeal.   3. The contention of appellant is that one Shri B.B. Bagaria was dealing with excise matter and retired in Jauuary 2010 and had not informed the appellant. The present impugned order received by him thereafter only in February 2011 when Revenue directed them .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal within the normal period of limitation. The order was received by the appellant in January 2010. This fact is not in dispute. The only contention is that the matter was not brought to the notice of higher ups by the excise clerk. As appellant had not taken care to file the appeal within the period of limitation and shifted blame on his employee. The negligence of the employee of applicant can .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X