9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, dated 21-3-2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original, dated 28-5-1999 of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 96,541/- by not condoning the delay of 76 days in filing the declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal dated 28-5-1999. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who through impugned order-in-appeal reversed the same and allowed the credit of disputed amount by condoning the delay of 76 days. 4. The Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order-in-app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Assistant Commissioner, under Rule 57G of the Rules, but the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner disallowing the condonation of delay, could be appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Act by the aggrieved party. The mere perusal of the subsequent Section 35A which lays down procedure in appeal, shows that the Commissioner has got ample power to confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re by him by the respondents. Threfore, the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 7. On merits, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the condonation of delay of 76 days to the respondents in filing the declaration under Rule 57T has not been questioned before him at all. The Commissioner (Appeals) had given v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
