2013 (10) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... MENT   Per: Justice G. Raghuram: At the stage of considering the stay application we are inclined to dispose of the appeal itself, as the issue falls within a narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of dues and dispose of the appeal. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order-in-appeal dated 11.02.2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh-II reject .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner within the stipulated period; and had failed to file the appeal within time. 3. Given the laconic nature of the application for condonation, the appellate authority rejected the appeal by concluding that the impugned order was despatched on 31.01.2011; that as per the provisions of Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal ought to have been filed within three months from the date of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imits and within the jurisdiction of the appellate Commissioner to condone. Without any such pleading the condonation of delay application was filed before the lower appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals), under the proviso to Section 85(3) had power to condone the delay of only a further 3 months. 5. In the circumstances, the rejection of the appeal on the bar of limitation by the Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X