9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. In this application, the department prays for the delay of 847 days involved in the filing of Appeal No. E/215/2002 preferred against Order-in-Appeal No. 1150, dated 29-6-99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. 2. The impugned order was received in the review branch of the Central Excise Commissionerate on 5-7-99. The order was accepted on 4-10-99 in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct-matter of the appeal at various appropriate levels in the department. He submits that the delay is unintentional and bona fide, and prays for condonation thereof. Sh. J.S. Agarwal, ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this application and submits that the lack of bona fides is apparent from the pleadings contained in the application itself. Counsel relies on the decision of this B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions. The delay involved in the filing of the Revenue s appeal is a stunning period of 847 days. The impugned order was received in the review cell of the Commissionerate on 5-7-99 and the same was accepted by the department on 4-10-99. It is pertinent to note that the acceptance of the impugned order took place on the last day of the statutory period of limitation for the appeal and that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 1150/99, dated 29-6-99 impugned in the present appeal. However, it has been categorically stated that the order-in-appeal impugned in the present appeal was accepted by the department on 4-10-99 in view of the fact that Order-in-Appeal Nos. 636-637/99, dated 26-4-99 on the identical issue had been accepted by the department earlier. Having regard to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but sought to be reviewed after some time. This Bench held to the effect that the subsequent instruction of the Board to file appeal did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay involved in such filing. I am inclined to agree with this view. There was a delay of only 57 days in that case whereas it is 847 days in the instant case. 7. In view of what has been said above, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
