2004 (4) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. This is an application by Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 217/2003, dated 31-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R., submitted that the impugned Order was received by the Commissionerate on 6-8-2003 and the same was accepted by the Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sioner s opinion within the time limit specified in Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. He relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Punj Bros. Ltd., 2003 (159) E.L.T. 789 (Tribunal) wherein delay of 23 months was not condoned as the Commissioner initially had accepted the order and the Chief Commissioner subsequently directed to file the appeal. 4. We have considered the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Appellate Tribunal may admit appeal after the expiry of the relevant period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. In the present matter the Revenue has not advanced any sufficient reason to condone the delay. We also observe that this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Vishwanath S.R. Mill, 2002 (150) E.L.T. 307 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X