TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... papers were handed over to the Applicant on 01.11.2011. Thus, there are contradictions in the claims of the Applicant. Besides, except the undated letter of the junior advocate to Mr.R.N.Sarkar, no other correspondences of the Advocate has been produced. Even though the Appeal was filed alongwith the Misc. Application for condonation of delay, no letter/affidavit from the Advocate Shri R.N.Sarkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CAL),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Modi, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri B.Saha, Special Counsel ORDER Per Dr. D.M. Misra. 1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed seeking condonation of delay 536 days in filing Appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Shri Arvind Modi, Ld.C.A. for the Applicant explaining the delay submits that they have received the order-in-original on 05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has also placed an undated letter of one Shri Nirmal Kr. Singh, Advocate who claims to be the junior of Shri R.N.Sarkar, and stated in the letter that the papers were returned on 01.11.2012 and Shri R.N.Sarkar, Advocate expired on 12.11.2013. 3. Per contra, the Ld.Special Counsel for the Revenue submits that it is not believable that the Applicant had not pursued the matter for filing Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 289 (SC). He contends that in the present case the Applicant has miserably failed to adduce any convincing reasons, warranting condonation of delay. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. We find that there is an inordinate delay of 536 days and though the Applicant had claimed that the delay has been caused at the end of the Advocate; however from the records, we do not find any substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Applicant are neither bona fide nor sufficient warranting condonation. We agree with the Ld.A.R. for Revenue that delay could be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown by the Applicant as laid down in various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court including in Living Media India Ltd. s case (supra). Following the said principle, we do not find any merit in the Application of the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
