9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier order passed which is beyond the power vested by the statue in tribunal. Since the appeal has been filed within time, this application for condonation of delay is infructuous and hence not maintainable. COD application dismissed. - Customs Miscellaneous Application (COD) No. 85573 of 2019, 86432 of 2019 in C/Cross/85571 of 2019 in Customs Appeal No. 86356 of 2013, 88062 of 2019 - M/85113-85115/2020 - Dated:- 5-2-2020 - HON BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Akhilesh Kangsia, Advocate, for the Appellant Assessee Shri Kishori Lal, Principal Commissioner, Authorised Representative for Revenue ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is hereby issued to the respondent to cause appearance on 15th November 2017 for disposal of appeal looking into the question of law and huge stake of Revenue is involved. If appellant chooses to cause appearance for hearing he may to do so in person or through his authorized representative. If appellant is absent, the matter shall be decided exparte. 2. With the above direction, miscellaneous application is allowed. Call on 15.11.2007 There after respondents namely M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd filed the cross objections along with the application for Condonation of Delay on 04.11.2019. Appellants subsequently filed appeal No C/88062/2019 along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tom Act, 1962. He further added stating that impugned order was part of the appeal papers sent by registry to the applicants in 2014, hence it cannot be said that they were not aware of the impugned order and could not have filed this appeal in time. Hence the huge delay of 2513 from the date of order, in filing this appeal has not be explained by the applicant. The application for condonation of delay needs to be dismissed. 5.0 We have considered the submissions made along with the applications for condonation of delay. 6.0 C/COD/85573/2019 in C/86356/2013: Counsel for applicant has submitted that he is not pressing for this application and the cross objections filed separately. In the present case facts also suggest that appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has itself recorded that the date of communication of impugned order is 09.04.2019 in the above referred order, and proceeded to discharge the defect memo and entertain the appeal. That being so the appeal has been filed by the appellant on 17.05.2009 within the period prescribed for filing the appeal. Any other view to be taken by this Bench will amount to review of the earlier order passed which is beyond the power vested by the statue in tribunal. Since we hold that appeal has been filed within time, this application for condonation of delay is infructuous and hence not maintainable. 8.0 In view of the discussions as above- i. C/COD/85573/2019 and C/CROSS/85571/2019 are dismissed. ii. C/COD/86432/2019 in Appeal No C/88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
