2001 (9) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on them. The grounds on which the condonation of delay has been sought by the appellants are as under :- (1)     That the impugned order dated 20-10-2000 was received by them on 27-10-2000 and they approached the respondents and disclosed them all the facts. They also disclosed to the respondents, the Department that they had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court against the impugned order. It has been further submitted that the respondents had assured them that the impugned order would not be implemented against them. (2)     They also believed bona fide that the limitation for filing the appeal would be run only after the decision of their writ petition pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) RLT 365] Southern Engg. Industries v. Supdt. of C.Ex. [1991 (52) E.L.T. 373] Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) = AIR 1987 SC 1353 5. In our view, this contention of the Counsel is not liable to be accepted keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order was admittedly received by the appellants on 27-10-2000 while the appeal had been filed by them on 15-5-2001. There is a delay of 141 days in filing the appeal as conceded by the Counsel. When the copy of the impugned order was sent to them, it was also made clear to them that the impugned order could be challenged by them before the Tribunal. If inspite of this information....