https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447695 The NCLAT dismissed both the condonation of delay application and the main appeal. The appellant filed the appeal beyond the 45-day limitation period and sought condonation of delay. However, the appellant made contradictory statements regarding when the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained, with dates differing from court records. The stated reason for delay - being out of station while travelling - was deemed insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that appellants must explain delays on a day-to-day basis with specific reasons. The application was rejected for both the delay itself and the incorrect statements made in the condonation application. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2024 08:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447695 The NCLAT dismissed both the condonation of delay application and the main appeal. The appellant filed the appeal beyond the 45-day limitation period and sought condonation of delay. However, the appellant made contradictory statements regarding when the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained, with dates differing from court records. The stated reason for delay - being out of station while travelling - was deemed insufficient. The tribunal emphasized that appellants must explain delays on a day-to-day basis with specific reasons. The application was rejected for both the delay itself and the incorrect statements made in the condonation application. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447695