TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refusal to condone 248-day delay; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and also on merits</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vadodara-II Versus Agro Pack</h3> SC refused to condone a 248-day delay, finding no error in the impugned order or sufficient explanation to liberalize the delay. After reviewing the ... Condonation of delay of 248 days - HELD THAT:- The order impugned is perused to ascertain whether it is a fit case to liberally construe the explanation to condone the delay. However, there are no palpable error in the order impugned. The Appeal is dismissed both on ground of delay as well as on merits. The Appeal was reported to be delayed by 248 days. The Court perused the impugned order to determine whether it was a 'fit case to liberally construe the explanation to condone the delay' and found no 'palpable error' in that order. On that basis the Court concluded that the explanation for delay could not be so construed and proceeded to consider merits, ultimately finding no error warranting interference. The Appeal was therefore 'dismissed both on ground of delay as well as on merits.' The reasoning rests on refusal to relax the delay requirement in the absence of a satisfactory explanation and on an independent assessment of the impugned order's correctness.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
