9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing in terms of the order passed in Stay Application Nos. 2047 to 2054 of 2009. 2. Heard. 3. Since common question of law and facts arises in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The appellants challenge the order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, dismissing the appeals filed before him agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applications for Condonation of Delay were not filed along with the appeals, but they were presented when the appeals came up for hearing. 6. In terms of Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, undoubtedly, the appeals are required to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of order which is sought to be challenge. The proviso to the said Section states that, the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants had abstained themselves from seeking leave of the Commissioner to condone the delay. It is also not the case of the respondent that the appellants had filed the appeals beyond the period of sixty days. Undoubtedly, there was a delay of less than 30 days in filing the appeals. Undisputedly, the appellants had actually prayed for condonation thereof when the matter had come up for hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the expiry of period of limitation has to file the application for condonation of delay along with the appeal. But in a case where the appellants genuinely and under mistaken belief file an appeal beyond a period of limitation and make an attempt to amend his mistake by taking appropriate steps, he should not be penalized for bona fide mistake committed in that regard. In the facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
