9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. P. Devnath, Advocate ORDER Rajive Bhalla , J. (Oral): The revenue is before us in an appeal to challenge correctness of an order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), New Delhi, dismissing their application for condonation of 199 days delay in filing the appeal and as a consequence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed itself to sufficient cause and only after recording an opinion thereon, adjudicated the matter on merits. It is contended that as the application for condonation of delay has been rejected without considering facts set out in the application, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the Tribunal has not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed into service by counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, a Committee of Commissioners decided to file an appeal, as required by Section 35-E(4) of the Act before the Tribunal so as to seek adjudication of their grievance that certain significant amounts have escaped assessment thereby causing loss to the revenue. The appeal was admittedly barred by 199 days. The revenue, therefore, filed a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the respondent pertain to adjudication of an appeal on merits wherein, it was found, as a matter of fact, that consideration by the Committee of Commissioners was not in consonance with provisions of Section 35-E of the Act and therefore, dismissal of the appeal, by the Tribunal, was held to be valid and in accordance with law. The situation in the present appeal is entirely different as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
