9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licants have filed this application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 254 days. 2. Arguing the application for condonation of delay, Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate submits that the factory was closed; that the guard was present who received the adjudication order sometime in the month of June, 2000; that this guard forgot to deliver this order to any officer of the company; that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Paliwal Steels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 465 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185. He, therefore prays that in view of the above judgments and specific facts of their case, delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. Shri A.N. Saxena, ld. DR submits that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs were already in progress against the appellant's company and, therefore the appellants should have intimated the new address. 5. In regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mst. Katiji cited above, we note that in the instant case the appellant was aware that some proceedings were against him in progress before the excise authority but he failed to communicate the alternate add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
