9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sub-section 3 of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- appellant was obviously confused as to what provisions of law were to be selectively invoked. Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the COD application filed by the party. - E/883/2011 - 644/2011 - Dated:- 30-9-2011 - P G Chacko, J. For Appellant: Ms Neetu James, Adv. For Respondent: Mr K S Kantaraj, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal in Form No.ST-4 to the Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed an application for condonation of the delay of the appeal, without citing any provision of law. The appellate authority held that the appellant had not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay and therefore rejected the application filed by the party. Consequently, the appeal also came to be dismissed as time-barred. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Order-in-Original and that any delay upto 3 months beyond the aforesaid period of 3 months was condonable by the Commissioner(Appeals) under the proviso to the sub-section. It is submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the provisions and unreasonably rejected the appeal and COD application in terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is, therefore, urged that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is available on record. On the one hand, Form No.ST-4 was used by the party and, on the other hand, Section 35 of the Central Excise Act was mentioned in the cause title of the appeal. The COD application filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not make any mention of sub-section 3 of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
