2014 (6) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing Counsel. ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties finally. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal to the CESTAT by the impugned order dated 25.02.2013. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that it had been approached in a highly belated manner. The following question of law arises : "Did the Tribunal err in refusing to condone the delay and hear the appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out this order and the matter came to light on 18.07.2012 when the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to it. It, therefore, wrote to the revisional authority seeking clarification on 28.08.2012. The revisional authority by a letter dated 06.09.2012 confirmed that the revision had been rejected on the basis of an interim report of 21.08.2012. 4. Thereupon the petitioner approached the Punjab a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the peculiar circumstances, the petitioner"s appeal before the CESTAT being C/4110/2012 shall be taken up for consideration uninfluenced by the question of delay. The pending applications, if any, with respect to waiver of pre-deposit shall be first decided by the Tribunal before adjudication upon the merits of the appeal. The parties are directed to be present before the Registrar, CESTAT on 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X