9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f review and that the department had three months time to file the appeal from such date - order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside while holding that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) - E/2675/2005 - 449/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 6-4-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sunil Kumar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri K.J. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President]. Heard DR for the appellants and learned advocate for the respondent. This appeal arises from order dated 18th May 2005 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut. By the impugned order the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner by its order dated 22nd September 2003 and though it is stated that the attested copy of the note sheet has been annexed to the appeal memo, no such annexure was filed with the appeal and even a copy thereof was not furnished to the respondent. 5. It cannot be disputed that no copy of any note sheet has been filed alongwith the appeal, however, that would not make difference in the matter in hand wherein the facts are very clear which are verified by the Commissioner in the verification clause as well as the impugned order does not disclose the date of review order as such even though it was to the knowledge of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appeal has been filed pursuant to the exercise un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and the provisions of this Act regarding appeals, including the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 35B shall, so far as may be, apply to such application. 8. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that even though the Commissioner (Appeals) was aware of the fact that the appeal has been filed in terms of the provisions of law comprised under Section 35E(2) read with sub-section (4) thereof he failed to take note of the fact that the date of 14th November 2003 was not the date of order of review but it was the date of communication of the order of review and that the department had three months time to file the appeal from such date. In the background of these facts, ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
