9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was 11/4/12. It is only after pointing out of discrepancy by the appellant that the department issued a corrigendum correcting the date of hearing as 11/3/12 in para 15 of the order. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only after the issue of the corrigendum dated 14th May 2012. Therefore, the reason for 16 day’s delay in filing of the appeal is genuine and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng as 11/4/12, the appellant after receipt of the order, sought clarification on this point from the Deputy Commissioner vide their letter dated 02/05/2012 pointing out this discrepancy. In response to this letter, the department issued a corrigendum dated 14th May 2012 stating that in the 15th para of the order-in-original dated 30th March 2012, the dated 11/4/12 should be read as 11/3/12 instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by the appellant, the department issued a corrigendum dated 14th May 2012, that it is only after receipt of this corrigendum that the appellant filed the appeal, that the only reason for delay in filing of appeal was the discrepancy in the date of hearing in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, that since there was genuine ground for condoning the delay and the Commissioner (Appeals) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was 11/4/12. It is only after pointing out of discrepancy by the appellant that the department issued a corrigendum correcting the date of hearing as 11/3/12 in para 15 of the order. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only after the issue of the corrigendum dated 14th May 2012. In my view, therefore, the reason for 16 day s delay in filing of the appeal is genuine a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
