2012 (11) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sp; 1. Heard both sides.   2. As common issue involved, therefore, all the applications are taken up together for disposal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants as time barred on the ground that the same were filed beyond the condonable period as provided under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. We find that this issue is now settled by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. 6. The contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence on record to show that the adjudication orders were served upon the appellant. The appellant asked for evidence REGARDING SERVICE OF ORDER and the Commissioner (Appeals) without providing any evidence passed the impugned order. 7. We find that in pursuance of the remand order pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (supra) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the time prescribed under the Act. As per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) can not condone the delay of thirty days. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The applications for condonation of delay are therefore dismissed. Consequently, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X