9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the stay Application. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the impugned order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the impugned order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by the CESTAT are not sustainable in law and accordingly we set aside both the aforesaid orders and remand back the Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing and final disposal of the same strictly on its own merits in accordance with law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication to him of such decision or order : [Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days.] [(1A) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties to any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing; Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal.] (2) Every appeal under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944, "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than the Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) within 60 days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order; provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the Appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days". In this case the Appellant has filed the Appeal after a delay of 29 days and has requested for condonation of delay but has not given any specific reason/cause for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented otherwise, there was no question of issuing any notice to the Appellant for personal hearing on Stay Application and the main Appeal. Over and above, there was no question of Commissioner (Appeals) recording all submissions of Appellant's partner on merits in the impugned order and considering only the ground of delay and dismissing the same. Ex-facie, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained at all. Inasmuch as one of the basic principles of natural justice is, that the party should put to notice that the above Appeal was delayed by more than 29 days and that the Appellant ought to have explained the same. Whereas, in the instant case, the Appellant had in fact given a letter dated 18th July, 2007 very categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
