https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123190 Delay attributable to a partnership firm's representative in not informing the applicant of the received order was held not to be a reasonable cause for condonation. The applicant's explanation that he was out of town and learned of the order only when departmental officers sought penalty payment was rejected because the order had already been received by the firm's worker and representative. As no sufficient cause was shown for the 174-day delay in filing the appeal, condonation was refused, and the stay application and appeal were dismissed. en-us Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:03:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123190 Delay attributable to a partnership firm's representative in not informing the applicant of the received order was held not to be a reasonable cause for condonation. The applicant's explanation that he was out of town and learned of the order only when departmental officers sought penalty payment was rejected because the order had already been received by the firm's worker and representative. As no sufficient cause was shown for the 174-day delay in filing the appeal, condonation was refused, and the stay application and appeal were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123190