TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 10-5-2012 - Ashok Bhushan and Prakash Krishna, JJ. For the Appellant : A. P. Mathur For the Respondent : Ssc/S.P.Kesarwani JUDGEMENT Heard Shri Ravi Kant and Atul Mehra for the appellant and Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondent. These appeals under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act have been filed against the order of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal but while affirming the order of Commissioner, the Tribunal recorded findings which is quoted below:- 9. Now, the issue to be considered is whether there was delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and whether the delay was within permissible limit of condonation of delay within the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals). The orders of the original authority hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2003. Having held that the appellants have received the orders at least on 13.08.2003, it is noticed that the appeals have been filed only on 21.10.2004 before the Commissioner (Appeals).The delay in filing these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) is much beyond the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay. 10. The submissions that the partner who received the orders w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals) rejecting these appeals as barred by time cannot be assailed. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the person who had received the order, was not authorized to receive the communication. The findings have been recorded by the Tribunal that the date of receipt of the order i.e. 13th August, 2003 has to be accepted. The appeal was filed by same person that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
