2002 (7) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (Appeals) through the impugned order on the ground of limitation. 3. The perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the appeal was filed against the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-3-2001, after expiry of nine months and eleven days, from the date of receipt of order-in-original by the appellants. Under Section 35 of the Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amount deserves to be allowed. But, in our view, this contention of the learned counsel cannot be gone into by us, at this stage. The order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner vide which the duty demand had been confirmed and penalty imposed had become final against the appellants as they failed to challenge the validity of that order before the Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellants on merits. Nor the Tribunal can, in our view, itself condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellants, before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal can condone the delay if sufficient cause is made out, only where the appeal had been filed before it after expiry of prescribed time, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Since the appeal of the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X