9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner(Appeals) himself has been a party to the appellant s plea that the said order of dismissal can be recalled, on showing the pre-deposit. - E/1492, 1493, 1510/2010 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Hon ble Member (Judicial) Dr. P. Babu, Hon ble Member (Technical) Shri Anand Nainavati, Adv. for Assessee. Shri S.K. Mall, SDR for the Revenue. Per: Archana Wadhwa: The prayer in the applications is to condone the delay of around 350 days in filing the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri Anand Nainavati, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri S.K. Mall, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue, we find that the present appeal stand filed against the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts as directed. They submitted that as the pre-deposits could not be made within the stipulated period on account of lack of immediate cash flow, the subsequent deposits may be treated as compliance and order of dismissal may be withdrawn. It is seen that on receipt of above application, Commissioner(Appeals) granted the applicant a personal hearing on 8.12.09. After grant of hearing, the applicant vide their letter dt.17.12.09 addressed to Commissioner(Appeals), placed on record the details of MODVAT Credit availed/utilized on capital goods, as directed by Commissioner(Appeals) during the course of hearing. Subsequently, vide their letter dt.13.9.10, the applicant reminded Commissioner(Appeals) to pass an appropriate order on their applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant cannot be held guilty of any lapse on their part. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides and after going through the letter dt.30.11.09 and subsequent letter dt.17.12.09, we find that there is a reference to the personal hearing given by Commissioner(Appeals) on 8.12.09. The said letter dt.17.12.09 shows official receipt of the same by the stamp of office of Commissioner (Appeals). As such, the appellant s plea that hearing was indeed held on 8.12.09, cannot be dismissed. If that be so, we may observe here that Commissioner(Appeals) himself has been a party to the appellant s plea that the said order of dismissal can be recalled, on showing the pre-deposit. In such a scenario, we find no intended lapse o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
