2018 (3) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nths from the date of receipt of the order that is impugned and that a delay of thirty days beyond that is condonable at the discretion of the appellate authority. As the appellant was led to believe that there was no delay, the scope for exercise of condonation did not exist. The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) stands restored - appeal allowed. - APPEAL NO: ST/85717/2017 - A/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order-in-original unambiguously specified a time-limit of three months for filing appeal; it is also their claim that this misinformation is a tenable justification for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The first appellate authority, appears to have disregarded this while recording that application for condonation of delay had not been filed. 4. It is seen that the preamble to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he discretion of the appellate authority. As the appellant was led to believe that there was no delay, the scope for exercise of condonation did not exist. This needs to be rectified by affording the appellant with an opportunity to do so. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) stands restored. The appellant is directed to file an appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X