https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75658 The Tribunal accepted the Counsel's explanation for the 86-day delay in filing an appeal, attributing it to mishandling by the Counsel's office. Emphasizing that the appellant should not suffer for the Counsel's mistake, the Tribunal relied on legal precedent and decided to condone the delay. Referring to established principles, the Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, directing the registry to proceed with the stay application. Judgment was delivered on June 30, 2009, by Tribunal members T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75658 The Tribunal accepted the Counsel's explanation for the 86-day delay in filing an appeal, attributing it to mishandling by the Counsel's office. Emphasizing that the appellant should not suffer for the Counsel's mistake, the Tribunal relied on legal precedent and decided to condone the delay. Referring to established principles, the Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, directing the registry to proceed with the stay application. Judgment was delivered on June 30, 2009, by Tribunal members T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75658