9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) specifically examined the request for condonation of delay, to exercise powers under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and discussed the same in para 11 of her order. The material submitted by the appellants were examined and same are found to be factually incorrect and not in consonance with the pleadings made by the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The admitted facts of the case are that the order of the original authority dated 15.01.2009 was received by the appellant on 19.01.2009. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 14.07.2009. The appellant did not dispute the date of receipt of original order or delay in filing the appeal. Some reason to the effect that concerned empl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period was found factually incorrect by the ld. Commissioner. In the absence of any other reason to substantiate the justifiable delay in filing appeal the same was dismissed as not maintainable by Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We find that appellants relied on certain case laws. The cases cited by the appellant in their appeal will not support the case of the appellant. We have considered these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal. 6. We find all the above cases deals with particular situations. In the present case in hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) did examine the submissions made by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay was almost three months beyond the statutory time of three months. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) specifically examined the request for condonation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
