9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 52/99 (M-II), dated 15-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is as to whether the delay of one day in filing the appeal was required to have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) or not for the reasons given by the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that there is seven days delay and not one day and he is not in a position to condone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that there was negligence on the part of the appellant even for one day (according to Commissioner (Appeals) the delay is seven days), the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected on that ground. He pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji - reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 has laid down the law in regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay. Appellant had also explained the reason for one day's delay (seven days according to Commissioner (Appeals)'s. The salient law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited case is that for marginal delay, appeal should not be dismissed as it would cause serious injury and hardship to the party. This aspect of the matter has been laid down by the Tribunal also. However, I notice th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
