Appeal withdrawn, supplementary appeals dismissed due to delays. Timely compliance crucial for justice.

The miscellaneous application for withdrawal of appeal No.E/874/10 is allowed, leading to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn. The applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals (No.E/875-876/10) are dismissed due to the Revenue's failure to comply with the Bench's directions promptly. The judge criticizes the Revenue's lackadaisical approach and emphasizes the importance of timely compliance with court instructions. The dismissal of the supplementary appeals underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines for the proper administration of justice. Appeal No.E/839/08 is directed to be listed accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Miscellaneous application for withdrawal of appeal.
2. Applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for the withdrawal of appeal No.E/874/10. The application is allowed, and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Additionally, applications for condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals for appeals No.E/875-876/10 are discussed. The judge notes the lackadaisical approach of the Revenue in following the directions of the Bench. The appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.90/2008 was filed on 19/11/2008, and the Bench instructed the Revenue to file supplementary appeals by 23/7/2010. However, the supplementary appeals were not filed until 3/9/2010, which was beyond the specified period. The judge criticizes the Revenue for not justifying the delay adequately and dismisses the applications for condonation of delay. Consequently, the supplementary appeals are also dismissed, and appeal No.E/839/08 is directed to be listed in due course.

2. The judge emphasizes the importance of complying with directions from the Bench in a timely manner. The Revenue's failure to file the supplementary appeals within the specified period is viewed as a lackadaisical approach that is detrimental to their case. The judge finds the delay unjustified and dismisses the applications for condonation of delay. This decision highlights the significance of adhering to procedural timelines and following instructions from the Tribunal diligently to ensure the proper administration of justice. The dismissal of the supplementary appeals due to the delay serves as a reminder of the consequences of not meeting procedural requirements in legal proceedings.

---