https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125888 Delay of one year and twenty days in filing an appeal was not condoned where the appellant initially did not dispute timely receipt of the order-in-original and later admitted receipt of the copy while alleging only non-receipt of the original. The order had been sent to the correct address by registered post with the relevant outward number, and the record supported service through the prescribed statutory mode. These facts showed that the appellant had knowledge of the order within time, and the explanation for the prolonged delay was found insufficient. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal was held barred by limitation. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125888 Delay of one year and twenty days in filing an appeal was not condoned where the appellant initially did not dispute timely receipt of the order-in-original and later admitted receipt of the copy while alleging only non-receipt of the original. The order had been sent to the correct address by registered post with the relevant outward number, and the record supported service through the prescribed statutory mode. These facts showed that the appellant had knowledge of the order within time, and the explanation for the prolonged delay was found insufficient. The condonation application was rejected and the appeal was held barred by limitation. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125888