9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endation of the officers for filing the appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal. Though we find that neither the name of the officer responsible for filing the appeal nor his explanation stand produced on record, but keeping in view that the appellant is a Government department, we accept the said explanation offered by the Revenue as “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay - stay petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Kundalia Industries [2012 (279) E.L.T. 351 (Del.)] held that inasmuch as the Committee of Commissioners did not apply their mind to the facts of the case while directing the Revenue to file an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was not maintainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal being barred by limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents. 5. It is seen that delay in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is of 199 days. The impugned order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 27-12-2010 and was received in the Commissionerate on 11-1-2011. Thereafter the same was reviewed by the concerned officer and a note was put up by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for filing an appeal against the said order-in-appeal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the Revenue draws our attention to an affidavit of the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi, Gurgaon reiterating the above facts. The main ground for the Revenue is that the Commissioners note accepted was mis-construed by the concerned person as acceptance of the order-in-appeal, whereas the Commissioner has accepted the recommendation of the officers for filing the appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
