2009 (5) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S.Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this Application for condonation of delay of 479 days in filing the Appeal. In the first Application for condonation of delay the Applicant stated that there is a delay of 470 days when counter-affidavit was filed by the Revenue. Now the Applicant submitted that delay is 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the Tribunal and produced a photocopy showing the seal of CESTAT. The contention is that this paper was found in the record. However when enquiry was made from the CESTAT office no such Appeal was received. Therefore the Applicants were under the bona fide belief that Appeal has been filed in the CESTAT therefore the delay in filing the Appeal be condoned. 5. Heard the learned Departmental Rep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Appeal is filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on 26-8-2006. We find that order is passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and appeal lies only to the Tribunal and not to the Commissioner (Appeals). Further on those papers there is no signature of any official of the Office of Commissioner (Appeals) showing the receipt of this document. Seal also does not show any details of the Office where the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X