https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107763 A Tribunal refused adjournment where the appellant claimed a High Court writ petition was essential evidence, finding no explanation why the petition could not be obtained without the client's presence or why instructions could not be taken outside court hours. It also declined to condone a 34-day delay in filing the appeals because the assertion that the director alone managed company affairs and was occupied with a police matter was unsupported by affidavit or documentary proof. In the absence of substantiation, the delay was not treated as beyond the appellant's control and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:30:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107763 A Tribunal refused adjournment where the appellant claimed a High Court writ petition was essential evidence, finding no explanation why the petition could not be obtained without the client's presence or why instructions could not be taken outside court hours. It also declined to condone a 34-day delay in filing the appeals because the assertion that the director alone managed company affairs and was occupied with a police matter was unsupported by affidavit or documentary proof. In the absence of substantiation, the delay was not treated as beyond the appellant's control and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107763