2012 (6) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uperintendent's letter that the impugned OIO dated 23.02.09 was handed over to the authorized signatory of the Applicant on 17.04.2009, and the acknowledgement to that effect was also obtained. If the time-period is reckoned from the date of acknowledgement, i.e. 17.04.2009, the appeal was filed within the time-limit prescribed u/s 35 of the Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appeal without granting any hearing to them. The contention is that from the Range Superintendent s letter C.No.GL-3/DAR/R-2/DGP-II/2007/75 dated 04.05.2010, it is very much clear that the impugned Order-in-Original No.11/JC/BOL/09 dated 23.02.2009, issued under C.No.V(15)188/Adj/CE/Bol/07/483 dated 27.02.2009 was handed over to the authorized signatory of the Applicant/Appellant Company on 17. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s reckoned from the date of acknowledgement, i.e. 17.04.2009, the appeal was filed within the time-limit prescribed under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal. In this situation, we remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity may be afforded to the Applicant/Appellant before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X