9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. The appellant had dispatched the appeal through a courier on 28-3-2000. However, it was received in the office of the Commissioner on 5-4-2000, and there was a delay of five days in filing of the appeal, which is not disputed. 3. It appears from the record that the notice of personal hearing was issued by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) requiring the appellant to appear on 5-8-2004 to explain the delay in the filing of the appeal. The appellant made an application on 4-8-2004, i.e., before the date fixed for hearing, explaining the delay of five days and praying for its condonation. In the said application, a copy of which is on record, it was stated that, the appellant had received the order-in-original dated 27-12-1999 on 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 on the request for condonation of delay. Thereafter, an application dated 10-5-2005 was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) pointing out that a cognate appeal in respect of the order of confiscation, redemption fine and penalty was pending and was required to be transferred to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut because all appeals relating to assessee of Bareilly Division were transferred to that office. For ready reference one set of the appeal papers filed against the order dated 19-7-1999, confiscating molasses, imposing redemption fine and penalty was filed along with this application. It is not disputed that the present proceedings are for collection of Central Excise duty on the ground that the goods were clandesti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to explain the delay in the filing of the appeal. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) gave an opportunity to the appellant to explain the delay by issuing the said notice and fixed the date of personal hearing on 5-8-2004, it was but proper on the part of the appellant to have explained the delay in the said application dated 4-8-2004 and prays for condonation. The statements made in this application for condonation have not been denied by the Revenue by filing any reply to that application. Therefore, the courier receipt coupled with the submissions made in the application, which were not disputed by the Revenue, clearly established that the appeal papers were dispatched on 28-3-2000 to the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. It is not any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
