2014 (3) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that there is sufficient reason to recall the order dated 2.4.2013 which was passed exparte without going into merit. Accordingly, the order dated 2.4.2013 is recalled and the appeal along with stay application and COD application are restored to its original number. 2. The applicant has filed this application for condonation of delay of 169 days involved in the filing of the appeal. The applicant in their application stated that they have received the impugned order on 9.4.2010. After going through the impugned order, they were lead to believe that the order by the learned lower appellate authority has decided the issue in their favour and accordingly they did not take any further acti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cant. It is stated that the applicant after receipt of the notice from the Department immediately rushed to the counsel and got clarification of the order. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy - 2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC). It is also contended that there is no dilatory tactics involved in this case. 5. The learned AR on behalf of Revenue submits that the applicant engaged the counsel to appear before the lower authorities. He further submits that the operative portion of the order is unambiguous. He submits that the bonafide belief is contradicted by their submission in their COD application. It is a clear case of negligence on their part. 6. After hearing both sides....