TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condonation of delay of 86 days for filing appeals. When the matter came up for hearing on 1-5-2009 as the applications did not disclose any fact which could reveal sufficient cause for condonation of delay, at the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant time was granted to do the needful in that regard. Today when the matter was called out, the written submission were filed along with a copy of the order dated 17-9-08 passed in Appeal No. E/2150/06 and E/378/07. The learned Advocate submits that the issue involved in these appeals is similar to the one which was dealt with by the Tribunal in the said disposed appeal and therefore, the delay in filing the present appeals should be condoned. 4. In the application for condo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acement of file by the counsel for the appellants, there is not a single fact as such disclosed in the applications for condonation of delay so as to consider the same by applying test for sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 6. As regards the written submissions, it is settled law that in order to enable the party to establish a fact relevant for the matter in issue, the appellants have to produce the necessary evidence in that regard. Normally, in miscellaneous matters, such evidence is produced in the form of affidavits. In that regard, Order XIX of Civil Code of Procedure lays down sufficient guidelines to be followed for the purpose of preparation of such affidavits. Undoubtedly, the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel of the appellant about the said impugned order. That the counsel of the appellant told him to bring the case file for filing the statutory appeal against the said impugned order. That however, the appellant could not send the case file to the counsel until date of 20-12-2008. That thereafter, on or about 3/4th Jan. 2009, the counsel drafted the appeal in consultation with the appellant which took some time and already the matter was delayed. That however, after perusing the case file it has been found that the original impugned order was not there in the file and same was pointed out by the counsel to the appellant on or about 10th Jan. 2009. That before the appellant could send the original impugned order, in the meantime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er it was informed to the appellants by their counsel on 29-1-2009 that there was a delay in filing appeal due to misplacement of case file and that therefore, another set of case file with original copy of the impugned order would be necessary, the appellants did not bother to contact the advocate till 8-2-2009 and it was only thereafter on 17-3-2009 the present appeals came to be filed. It further discloses that from 8-2-2009, there was no case of any misplacement of appeal file as such but it was a clear case of carelessness on the part of the appellants as well as their advocate resulting in failure to pursue the remedy of the appeals expeditiously. 11. The above facts rather than disclosing any cause for condonation of delay re....