https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116213 A 145-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation did not amount to sufficient cause: although the applicant relied on a factory lockout and the advocate being out of India, the order had been received on 19 December 2003 and the papers were available by March 2004. The Tribunal therefore declined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, treated the appeal as beyond the prescribed time, and dismissed it as time barred and not maintainable. en-us Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:42:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116213 A 145-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation did not amount to sufficient cause: although the applicant relied on a factory lockout and the advocate being out of India, the order had been received on 19 December 2003 and the papers were available by March 2004. The Tribunal therefore declined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, treated the appeal as beyond the prescribed time, and dismissed it as time barred and not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116213