TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed on 29.12.2009, the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the appellate commissioner namely, the 2nd respondent within a period of 60 days or within a period of 30 days thereafter with an application for condoning the delay after explaining the reasons for the delay - Though, the preamble to the impugned order states that the appeal should have been filed within 90 days, as per the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sundareswaran ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2009. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has confirmed a sum of ₹ 23,05,874/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Five Thousand Eight Hund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. I have also perused the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. Though, the petitioner was issued to show cause notice dated 10.09.2008, the petitioner failed to file any reply to the said show cause notice. 6.It is further noticed that the show cause notice was issued on 10.09.2008 whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed long after a lapse limitation on 26.04.2011. 8.Therefore, I am unable to allow the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent Appellate Commissioner as the petitioner has been negligent in neither participating in the adjudicatory mechanism provided under the Act nor in not filing a statutory appeal in time. Even according to the petitioner, the impugned order was received on 4.01.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
