2006 (12) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vocates, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Das, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Learned Counsel Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee appearing for the applicant/appellant company submits that the appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, having been filed on 24-5-2005, as against the communication of the Order of Adjudication on 6-9-2004. The first Appellate Authorit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al is filed beyond sixty days, subject to the condition that the said period beyond 60 days does not exceed thirty days, and beyond such a period, if any appeal is filed, he has no power to admit the same. The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant company, however, urged to condone such delay invoking Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Apex Court has also held in the case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) = AIR 1996 SC 3285 that Court cannot direct the Adjudicating Authorities (who are creatures of the Act) to ignore the limit and act contrary to the law. 5. In the fitness of the case, matters reach consideration, if there is no violation to the statutory powers and such a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X