9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent ORDER The applicant has moved an application seeking condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the appeal in terms of Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant has stated in the application that they have received the Order-in-Appeal dated 8.6.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) on 13.6.2016 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 13.9.2016 whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application. It has also been stated that the company does not have qualified personal staff for dealing with legal matters and other Directors of the Company being his family members, have also not been able to help and improve the business. Further, the applicant has stated that when they received the Order-in-Appeal, they understood that the Commissioner (A) had referred the matter back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the Directors of the Company Shri K. Shashi Kiran appeared and further, during the remand proceedings, the Managing Director who has signed the present memorandum himself had appeared at the personal hearing. It is difficult to accept that the appellant could not understand the Order-in-Appeal properly as the Order-in-Appeal was simple and in plain language. He further submitted that the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application. He further submitted that the applicant does not stand to gain anything by filing the appeal late. He further submitted that the Revenue will not be prejudiced if the appeal is decided on merits. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that though the reasons stated in the COD application for filing the appeal belat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
