https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339071 An appeal filed after an inordinate delay of 6324 days from communication of the impugned order and 4499 days from the restoration order was not saved by the explanation offered. The appellant relied on its earlier withdrawal of proceedings to pursue remedies before the Settlement Commission and the later failure to obtain relief there, but this was found to be no satisfactory cause for the prolonged lapse. The shift between fora was also viewed as inconsistent with judicial propriety. Delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:06:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339071 An appeal filed after an inordinate delay of 6324 days from communication of the impugned order and 4499 days from the restoration order was not saved by the explanation offered. The appellant relied on its earlier withdrawal of proceedings to pursue remedies before the Settlement Commission and the later failure to obtain relief there, but this was found to be no satisfactory cause for the prolonged lapse. The shift between fora was also viewed as inconsistent with judicial propriety. Delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339071