2013 (5) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of delay and stay of realization of demand. Matter first came up on board on 27.1.2012. On that day, notice was issued for hearing on 16.03.2012 and on 16.03.2012. The matter was adjourned observing that main appeal connected to the same order in orignal to be tagged. On that day, ld.Counsel Shri A.K.Dixit appeared. The matter again came up on 22.02.2012 to connect with appeals and matter was a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ness he could not contact to his advocate. On 17.10.2011 the appellant recovered from illness and on 19.10.2011 he approached Counsel Shr Amit Awasthi and handed over him impugned order dated 04.02.2011 and relevant papers for preparation of appeal. The appeal was verified by the appellant on 21.10.2011. 4. History of the case in the application for condonation of delay as above shows that there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nclined to appreciate the cause of delay while we find that length of delay is also unreasonable. While appreciating rule of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ketan V.Parekh vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforemment-2012 (28) STR 195 (SC), we are satisfied that present application for condonation of delay is devoid of merits but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, MA(COD), and s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X