2016 (8) TMI 886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (s) : Shri T. K. Sikdar, AR ORDER Heard both sides. 2.  This miscellaneous application is filed seeking condonation of delay of one year ten months i.e. 665 days(approx.) in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.  Explaining the cause of delay, the Ld. Advocate submitted that even though the impugned Order dt.03.05.2013  was communicated to them on 05.12.2013, but, the appeal co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion furnished and also in  the affidavit of Sh. Satish M. Mahyavanshi  it is clear that the delay was due to sheer negligence on the part of the Appellant, hence cannot be condoned in view of principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.). 4.  We find that even though the order was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t case as the same were under a  different set of circumstances. On the contrary, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Living Media India Ltd.'s case(supra), we are of the opinion that  gross negligence cannot be construed  as sufficient cause warranting condonation of the inordinate delay of 655 days(approx.). 5. In the result, the ino .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X