2003 (10) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri V. Valte, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. Both these appeals are on the same issue and therefore, are being taken up together for disposal. 2. Both the appeals are filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed as time-barred. 3. The Adjudicating Authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peals on the ground of limitation. The contention of the appellants is that no opportunity was granted to them to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The Commissioner (appeals) has taken into consideration that the adjudication order was pasted on 22-12-2002 at their factory premises which was lying closed. As the factory was lying closed, the Adjudication Order was also served on the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that their factory was closed during that period. In these circumstances, we find that as the adjudication order was received by the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address, therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. We further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellants before dismis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X