2013 (1) TMI 787

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udicial Member) This application filed by the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, seeks condonation of the delay of their appeal, which is seen estimated as 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. 2. Today there is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. On the previous occasion (15/10/2012), the counsel for the appellant had pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellant is factually erroneous. The appellant has got to explain the actual delay of around 225 days. The present application seeks to explain the delay of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. In this connection, it has been submitted that an application was filed with the Commissioner under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 25/08/2011 seeking rectification of certain mistake....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d ultimately filed it with the Registry on 01/12/2011. 5. Having considered the above facts presented before me by both sides, I am not inclined to allow the present application, for the following reasons: (a) The actual delay of appeal is around 225 days but the appellant has not even attempted to explain the delay in excess of 181 days and 1 or 2 more days transit time. (b) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s claim that they were awaiting the results of the Section 74 application does not stand to reason inasmuch as the Commissioners order dt. 31/12/2010 itself was accompanied by a preamble which advised the appellant to appeal to this Tribunal within 3 months, if aggrieved. The provisions of Section 86(3) of the Act coupled with the advisory preamble to the impugned order were enough to make it incu....