TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to accept the plea that the learned consultant withheld the back papers for a long time. The learned AR rightly pointed out that the affidavit is without any supporting material. The contention of the learned AR that the impugned order was issued in the month of August 2009, which is disputed by the learned Advocate, is not supported by any material. Even, if we proceed on the basis of the subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te on his business regularly during that period. In the month of September 2010 the applicant received a recovery notice from the Department stating that Order-in-Appeal dated 27-8-2009 was passed in their case. Then, the applicant collected the impugned order from the Department in the month of September 2010. Since, the back papers of the appeal were lying with the consultant who appeared in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not received the impugned order in August, 2009. He also makes an alternative plea that even if it is assumed that the applicant has received the impugned order only in September, 2010, there is no cogent reason for condoning the delay. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Rajmal Lakhichand - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.). He also submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010. Presuming, the applicant received the order in the month of September 2010 and the appeal was filed on 3-8-2011, long after the period of trauma and it was occurred due to non-availability of back papers from the learned consultant who appeared in the case before the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We are not satisfied with the reasons for condoning the delay of 246 days. It is particularly no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
