9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed 3 days after the expiry of 60 days without even moving an application for condonation of delay. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that though the delay of 30 days after the expiry of the normal period of 60 days can be condoned but for that the appellant would have to file an application for condonation of delay, which was not filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the appeal was filed three days after the period of 60 days contemplated under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the office should have issued a deficiency memo to the appellant but that was not done. Learned counsel also pointed out that even during the course of the hearing of the appeal this fact was not raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have filed appropriate application to condone the delay. Instead of, the Appellate Commissioner has straight away proceeded to pass the impugned order." 6. In the instant case, the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was numbered as Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2020 and notice for final hearing of the appeal was sent to the appellant as a result of which the appellant appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) for final hearing of the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not indicate that any notice was sent by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) for filing a delay condonation application nor does the order indicate that Director of the appellant who had appeared was intimated about this fact. 7. As th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect the selling price of the goods; e- Section 9 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 would have no application to the facts of the present case; and f- As neither party raised any objection on this issue, the reference has been answered." 12. The matter was not examined on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the appeal was dismissed only on the ground of being barred by time. As the issue on merits has been decided by the Tribunal, we have considered it appropriate not to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a fresh order and have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 13. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in Harit Polytech, it is not possible to sustain the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
