9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member None - For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 28/10/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal at the threshold for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 35F. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are providing personnel to sugar factory wherein the said personnel are being used for various services such as sugar bag filling, handling, loading, unloading, printing etc. Since the activity is classifiable under Manpower Supply or Recruitment Agency , they have obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay of one month if he satisfies that because of sufficient cause, the appeal could not be filed. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that in the present case, there was a delay of 26 days but the appellant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on account of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 35F for not depositing the mandatory predeposit. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal along with an application seeking condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a period of one week but the appellant has stated in the appeal that he has received the copy of the impugned order on request from the Superintendent on 08/08/2017. Learned AR further submitted that the appellant is required to file COD application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal which he has not done. 5. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the COD application which has been filed by the appellant is not maintainable before this Tribunal as the delay of 26 days have been caused before the Commissioner(Appeals) and not before this Tribunal. Therefore, we dismiss the COD application. Further we find that there is inordinate delay of around 9 months in filing appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
