2014 (7) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... considered. It is perverse for the learned appellate Commissioner to hold that care of a spouse and the need for her attention is not a relevant criterion. The discretion to condone the delay authorised to the appellate Commissioner is not the personal discretion of the Commissioner; it is the discretion of the law and should be examine appropriately as dictates of law require. The order is whimsi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tice. 2. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Ghaziabad. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the learned appellate Commissioner. The appellant preferred the appeal (to the appellate Commissioner) on 18.09.2012 against the primary adjudication order which was received on 21.06.2012 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lness of the wife had affected the business of the appellant. 3. We are satisfied that this is an extremely arbitrary exercise of discretion. Condonation of delay particularly in the circumstances pleaded by the appellant should be liberally considered. It is perverse for the learned appellate Commissioner to hold that care of a spouse and the need for her attention is not a relevant criterion. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X