9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER Per : S. S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal on time bar. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant had sent the appeal on 13.7.2013 to LTU well before the expiry of the due date for filing appeal. Further, it was submitted that the date on which the appeal was received by the LTU ought to have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal was wrongly filed within time before the Commissioner (A), who did not have jurisdiction which eventually resulted in 64 days delay in filing the appeal, then such appeal must be considered as filed within time. The Hon'ble High Court thereafter remanded the matter to the Commissioner (A) who had jurisdiction. Appellant also relied upon the following decisions: Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. CC: 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision would squarely apply to the facts of the case and there would not be any delay in filing the appeal as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. The impugned order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal is illegal and opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside." 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
