2015 (9) TMI 1478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing appeal of 301 days. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is a proprietorship firm, engaged in the business of rendering service of 'Erection Commissioning or Installation Service' to various parties ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....various circumstances, as stated above.  It is submitted that on the identical situation, the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court condoned the delay.  He relied upon the following decisions as under:- (a) N. Balakrishan vs M. Krishnamurthy 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) (b) State of Kerala vs M.G. Presanna 2011 (266) E.L.T. 420 (S.C.) (c) Uma Textiles Processors vs Union of India 2013 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... explanation for long delay of the filing of the appeal in 2014 and 2015.  We agree with the submission of the Learned Authorised Representative that the applicant had not stated the reasons in detail for delay during the material period.  Thus, we do not find any sufficient reason for condonation of delay of filing appeal. 5. The Learned Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble....