9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the 60 days has occurred in the present case while filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). As per Section 35 of Central Excise Act 1944, no doubt an appeal has to be filed before Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days of receipt of Order-in-Original but the proviso therein extends a discretion to Commissioner (Appeals) itself to condone the delay for a further period of 30 days. No doubt there was no application seeking Condonation of delay was filed by the appellant as has been acknowledged by ld. Counsel as on date as well - The delay is so minuscule that the malafide intent cannot be opined against the appellant. Law is otherwise settled that the disposal of a lis shall always be on merits. Law of limitation is otherwise to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed Representative for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that Order in Original dated 28.04.2018 was dispatched to be received by appellant on 7th May, 2018. Annexure B as attached with the appeal is impressed upon for the same. It is submitted that appeal was filed on 11th July, 2018. There has merely been a delay of two days which occurred due to personal exigency been met with the Counsel for the appellant which despite due diligence got beyond control of the ld. Counsel. Accordingly, the delay of two days is unintentional. Matter is requested to be heard on merits. Order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside. 5. To rebut these submissions ld. DR has laid emphasis upon para 5.2 of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissal of appeal still without exercising the discretion is therefore, not opined justified. The delay is so minuscule that the malafide intent cannot be opined against the appellant. Law is otherwise settled that the disposal of a lis shall always be on merits. Law of limitation is otherwise to be exercised liberally. There is a catena of decision specially as held by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag Another vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185 SC in which it was held as follows:- i) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
