2008 (9) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - Heard both sides. 2. Shri Jyoti Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that there is a delay of 60 days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal and he seeks condonation of the same on the ground that the Advocate, Shri Sujit Kumar Ghosh who was engaged by the Appellants initially delayed in filing the Appeal, for which an affidavit ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtner of the appellant partnership firm. As such, on the admission of the Appellants' Advocate, the MA (COD) has been signed by another person misrepresenting himself as Shri Shibu Ghosh. Moreover, in the Appeal, the stamp indicates that Shri Shibu Ghosh is a partner of M/s. Dolly Distributors, whereas the MA (COD) indicates that Shri Shibu Ghosh is the proprietor of M/s. Dolly Distributors. In vi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the impugned Order-in-Original was received by the Party on 8-3-06 and the Appeal was filed before the lower Appellate Authority on 13-12-06, i.e., after 9 months, the lower Appellate Authority had no discretion to condone the delay considering the appeal. It is well settled now that the lower Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory time limit and he cannot hear an appeal filed beyond t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X