2008 (11) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ]. In this case, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. The appeal before the Commissioner had challenged a demand of duty of Rs. 67,761/- and penalties of Rs. 67,561/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rs. 5,000/- on proprietor of the appellant-firm. 2. After hearing both sides on the stay application and dispensing with the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss of the sixty days provided in the Act to file appeal. It is submitted that in the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have exercised his discretion and condoned the delay as per proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act. 4. Ld. JDR does not contest the submission made by the ld. Consultant. 5. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case, I find that sufficient ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X