2016 (10) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"), against the order passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore in ST/COD/20405/2015 in ST/23019/2014 dated 31.08.2015. By the said order, the CESTAT rejected the appellant's application to condone the delay of 171 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.04.2013. As has been noted by the Tribunal in its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order under appeal, it is evident that the appellant's father was admitted in hospital for 4 days in the month of February, 2014; 8 days in the month of May, 2014; and 6 days in the month of July, 2014 for liver and kidney ailment ie for a total period of 18 days in three different spells; the appellant sought condonation, of the delay in filing the appeal of over six months (171 days), on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act to entertain the appeal, is only if a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact, and save a finding based on no evidence or one which is perverse, no substantial question of law can be said to arise necessitating interference in an appeal under Section 35G of the Act. It is evident from the order passed by the Tribunal that the petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X