9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeking condonation of delay of 676 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Though two Orders-in-Appeal have been passed but the issue in both the appeals is identical; and in the applications seeking condonation, the ground on which condonation is sought are also the same; therefore, both the applications seeking condonation of delay are being disposed of by the present common order. It has been averred by the applicant in their applications that the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.12.2013 was received by the applicants on 13.1.2014 and the appeal was required to be filed on or before 13.4.2014 whereas in fact the present appeals were filed only on 18.2.2016 with a delay of 676 days. The applicant has further averred that upon rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT on 18.2.2016 with the delay of 676 days in filing the appeals. Applicant has submitted that the delay in filing the appeals was unintentional and attributable to the wrong legal advice of the applicant s counsel. Applicants submit that they have a very good case on merits and on the same issue, this Hon'ble Tribunal has passed various orders following the Larger Bench s decision of CESTAT in the case of M/s. J.K. Tyres & Industries vs. ACE: 2016-TIOL-1781-BANG.-LB. The learned counsel further submitted that a liberal approach should be adopted in the matter of condonation of delay because the applicant does not stand to gain anything by filing the appeal late, therefore, he prayed for condonation of delay and deciding the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details of which are as under: Sl. No. Appeal Nos. Impugned Order No. Final Order of the Tribunal 1 E/276/2009 & E/423/2009 OIA No.3/2009 dt.21.1.2009 No.21405-21406/2015 dt.29.5.2015 2 E/25528/2013 OIO No.33/2012 dt.18.12.2012 No.207270/2016 3 E/26812/2013 OIA No.77/2013 dt.25.3.2013 No.20608/2016 dt.4.8.2016 2.1 He further submitted that when the applicant can file appeals on similar issues and some are pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal and some of them have been disposed of then why the applicant did not file the appeals in the present two cases is not understandable. He also submitted that the only reason given by the applicant for seeking condonation of delay is the wrong advice given by the lawyer of the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
