2015 (11) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Appellant : Ms Priyanka Goel, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals along with applications for condonation of delay. 2. To entertain the appeals, first, we have dealt with the applications for condonation of delay whether the delay can be condoned or not. 3. In this case, initially the show cause notices were is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2015. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that initially there is a delay of 410 days from the date of passing the impugned order but the impugned order was received by them only on 10.01.2014 and thereafter they sought advice from the Director of the co-appellant company, who suggested them to file a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and on his advice, they have filed writ petition before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, they could not file appeal before this Tribunal in time. As they have explained the reasons for causing delay, therefore, the applications for condonation of delay be allowed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in - 2002-TIOL-737-SC-LMT. 3. Heard ld. Counsel and perused the rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n which was restored on 5.08.2014 and again the same was dismissed on 19.01.2015. On 19.01.2015, the appellant also preferred not to appear before the Hon'ble High Court. It is the contention of the appellants that the order of the High Court was received by them only on 12.02.2015, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has clearly mentioned that the remedy against the impugned order is available....