2004 (9) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants have questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority condoning the delay in filing the declaration in respect of capital goods detailed therein. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the Assistant Commissioner after taking into account the cause for delay in filing the declaration .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ithin stipulated period, but within three months of the receipt of goods in the factory. The Assistant Commissioner condoned the delay in filing the declaration and allowed the Modvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed this part of the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that no reasons were recorded for condoning the delay. But this view of the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd exercised his discretion in favour of the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly reversed his order without any legal ground and as such, the impugned order passed by him cannot be sustained. 5. In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent to which it has been challenged in the appeal, is set aside. The appeal of the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X