2016 (12) TMI 1182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent ORDER The present appeals are directed against the order dated 10.6.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A) who vide the impugned order has dismissed both the appeals being barred by limitation without going into the merits of the case. Since the impugned order is common, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2.  Briefly the facts of the present case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) who vide common impugned order dated 10.6.2015 dismissed the appeal as not admitted by holding that from "original post cover containing the Order-in-Originals, wherein the date of receipt was smudged. However, the photocopy of the said cover contained a unsigned penned remark stating the date of receipt as 24.08.2014. It is pertinent to note that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) should have adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay because it was very much within his power to condone the delay on sufficient ground being shown. He further submitted that for advancing the cause of substantive justice, the delay should have been condoned and the appeals should have been decided on merits. He also submitted that if the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X