9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay of 12 days from the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original and same was within the condonable limit, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and remand the case back to the Commissioner(Appeals) for disposal on merits. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/COD/20539/2018 in ST/20916/2018-DB - Final Order No. 21079/2018 - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Pradyumna G.H. Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Murali, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG Appellant/applicant has filed a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal. After hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and the evidence. He further submitted that the order dt. 30/11/2016 passed by the Asst. Commissioner was communicated to the appellant on 06/02/2017 through personal tender and as per the provisions of Section 85 of the Act, the due date for filing the appeal was 05/04/2017. However the appeal could not be presented before the Commissioner(Appeals) within the due date provided under law for the reason that the appellants were unable to pre-deposit the amount required to be paid under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Act. He further submitted that the amount in question i.e. ₹ 27,935/- was paid on 22/04/2017 and in the process, the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. 6. After hearing both sides and perusal of records, we find that the Order-in-Original was passed on 30/11/2016 and allegedly received by the appellant on 06/02/2017 and appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) was to be filed within two months i.e. before 05/04/2017. But in the present case, it was filed after a delay of 12 days after the expiry of due date of two months. Further we find that as per the assertion of the appellant, Order-in-Original was served on the appellant through personal tender which could have been verified by the Commissioner(Appeals) from the jurisdictional office but the same was not done. Further, we note that the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal without exercising his power of condonation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
