9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President]. - This COD application has been filed by the applicant for seeking condonation of delay of 812 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 24-6-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the delay caused in filing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e upto 25% of the duty amount. Realizing this, the appellant filed writ petition in the Delhi High Court in May, 2011. The High Court observed that the appellant ought to have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal. Therefore, the appellant withdraw the writ petition and preferred this appeal. In view of the above, it is submitted that delay in filing of the appeal is due to genuine reason as lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the rival submissions and perused the records. On reading from para 10 of the application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the appellant admittedly was served with the impugned order on 26-6-2009. Thus, he ought to have filed the appeal latest by 24-9-2009. Admittedly the appeal has been filed on 14-12-2011 after delay of 812 days. 5. In order to succeed the applicant/appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the records, it transpired that the appeal against the impugned order has not been filed. Thus under the term of arrest of the Director, the appellant deposited the interest and penalty. Thus, it is apparent that in December, 2010, the appellant had come to know that the appeal has not been filed against the impugned order. Despite that the appellant did not prefer to file the appeal and ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
