https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273604 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appellant's appeal and stay application due to misrepresentation of facts in the condonation of delay application. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving the impugned order on 25.2.2013, documentary evidence proved it was received on 10.6.2003, leading to a rejection of the condonation application. The judgment underscores the importance of accurate representation of facts in such applications and the significance of documentary evidence in determining timelines for filing appeals. It also emphasizes the need for clear instructions in court orders to prevent misunderstandings. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2018 06:20:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273604 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the appellant's appeal and stay application due to misrepresentation of facts in the condonation of delay application. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving the impugned order on 25.2.2013, documentary evidence proved it was received on 10.6.2003, leading to a rejection of the condonation application. The judgment underscores the importance of accurate representation of facts in such applications and the significance of documentary evidence in determining timelines for filing appeals. It also emphasizes the need for clear instructions in court orders to prevent misunderstandings. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273604