9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision gives a discretion to Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing the Appeal to be presented within a further period of 30 days provided a sufficient cause for not presenting the Appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days is shown. In the present case, the Order-in-Original was announced on 11.03.2014. The Appeal was filed on 23.12.2015. It becomes clear that Appeal before Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Jaju, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, DR ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Appellant s Application praying for Condonation of Delay heard. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has mentioned that the export-import manager of the appellant was sick, therefore, the Appeal could not have been filed withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document is opined adequate, sufficiently explaining delay of said 15 days. Otherwise also, it is the intention of law that the technicalities of law should be hand made for justice and should not be used to avoid decision on merits. Finally, keeping in view that no injustice shall be caused to the Department in case the Appeal in hand is disposed on merits, we hereby condone the delay of 15 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) can be filed under Section 35 of Central Excise Act that too within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision/Order to the appellant. The provision gives a discretion to Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing the Appeal to be presented within a further period of 30 days provided a sufficient cause for not presenting the Appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days is shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, we find no infirmity in the Order of Commissioner(Appeals) irrespective of the appellant s pleading that he received the impugned order on 17.12.2015. Otherwise also, the appellant was apparently appearing in person before the original Adjudicating Authority. Plea of no knowledge is irrelevant specially when there is evidence on record that the Order-in-Original was sent to the appellant thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
