https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52318 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI dismissed the appeal due to a 16-month delay in filing, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the applicant. The applicant's claim of believing the proprietor would file the appeal, not him, was rejected as the Commissioner's order identified him as the authorized person. Contradictory claims in the application and affidavit, including consulting a third party for filing the appeal, were found inconsistent and lacked evidence. The Tribunal deemed the explanations insufficient to justify the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52318 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI dismissed the appeal due to a 16-month delay in filing, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the applicant. The applicant's claim of believing the proprietor would file the appeal, not him, was rejected as the Commissioner's order identified him as the authorized person. Contradictory claims in the application and affidavit, including consulting a third party for filing the appeal, were found inconsistent and lacked evidence. The Tribunal deemed the explanations insufficient to justify the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52318