9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission of the Ld. Counsel that the order is not signed does not hold water for the reason that it is attested copy issued by the department wherein it is clearly mentioned that it is copy of the signed order, secondly if there is dispute impugned order that cannot be raised for dealing with the time in filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). As regard the submission being Government f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner(Appeals) on 2/8/2004 therefore Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal being time bar. 3. Shri. Parag Vyas, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that Original order was dated 15.12.95 and also dated 22.8.2000 is mentioned. He submits that copy of the order is attested copy whereas it is not signed by the Asstt. Commissioner as on 15.12.2005 and therefore it is not order which was appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute that the order was passed and attested copy of the same was provided to the appellant. Therefore appeal filed in the year 2004 is time bar and the commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condon the delay over and above prescribed time limit. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. We find that fact is not under dispute that order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be levy of duty is subject matter of the merit of the case, which cannot be raised when the appeal itself is not maintainable being time bar before the Commissioner(Appeals). As per our above discussion, we do not find any substance in the appeal therefore order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper which does not require any interference, we therefore uphold the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
