2010 (6) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri Rajinder Gupta, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - Heard both sides on the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-7-06. The appeal has been filed only on 26-2-2010 after a delay of about 3 years and 7 months. 2. In pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal dated 1-6-2010, the applicant has filed a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, the appeal has been filed on 26-2-2010. In view of the above, he submits that delay was attributable to wrong direction, though oral of the registry and that the applicant was pursuing the remedy before revision authority under a bona fide belief and therefore, the delay should be condoned. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be condoned unless valid reasons are given for the delay. The applicant has produced the contemporaneous evidence by way of copies of demand drafts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- taken by them on 29-9-06 from ICICI Bank in favour of the Assistant Registrar, CESTAT. This is a strong evidence in support of their claim that they intended to file appeal on 30-9-06 and only because of some oral direction ....