2006 (4) 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

..... al Kumar, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both the sides and after allowing the stay petition unconditionally, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the point of lime bar and not on merits. 2. It has be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, inasmuch as the said appeal was not signed and order-in-original was not attached with the appeal, the same was returned to the appellant by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide their letter dt. 6-10-2005. The said letter was described as deficiency memo. Thereafter the appellant filed the complete appeal paper on 21-10-05, it is the appellants contention that the first appeal having .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... admittedly the appeal was first filed on 30-9-2005 and it was only for the purposes of removal of the defects, that the same was returned back to the appellant. Such defect could have been removed even by retaining the appeal in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals). Instead of returning the appeal papers to the appellant. It has been explained to us that the appeal papers were not signed by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X