https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50958 A 29-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation was vague, unsupported and attributed to an unnamed official, despite the appeal having been signed and verified by the General Manager himself. The tribunal treated the explanation as showing clear laches and distinguished the cited precedents on their facts. Applying the principle that a party seeking discretionary relief must come with clean hands, it dismissed the condonation application and, as a consequence, dismissed the appeal. en-us Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:40:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50958 A 29-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation was vague, unsupported and attributed to an unnamed official, despite the appeal having been signed and verified by the General Manager himself. The tribunal treated the explanation as showing clear laches and distinguished the cited precedents on their facts. Applying the principle that a party seeking discretionary relief must come with clean hands, it dismissed the condonation application and, as a consequence, dismissed the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50958