2012 (11) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th sides.   2. The applicant filed this application for restoration of the appeal. The COD application which was dismissed vide order dt.14/03/2012. The contention of applicant is that on the day he instructed his counsel to appear before the adjudicating authority however the learned counsel didn't appear. Therefore the appeal was dismissed and immediately applicant filed application for re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t.   Appellant was not in a position to take decision about the appeal proceedings hence decided to pay the disputed duty again under protest and according entire duty liability paid.   4. During arguments applicant submitted that it is the fault of their counsel who had not appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as had not filed appeal within the normal period of limitatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... od of limitation. In the present case, as the applicant is taking contradictory stand i.e. in the application the contention is that applicant was not in a position to take decision for filing the appeal whereas during the arguments applicants blame his Counsel. In these circumstances, we find that the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for delay. The COD application is dismissed. Conseq .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X