2006 (1) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with the pre-deposit, we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appeal is against an order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e this delay under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. He was competent to condone the delay of up to 90 days only. Hence the impugned order. 3. It appears from the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that the party was pursuing the appellate remedy in an erroneous manner. They did file an appeal within time, but at the wrong place. While this appeal was travelling in a checkered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned with reference to the date of filing of their original appeal, particularly since the factum of such filing is not contested by the Department. Even the impugned order acknowledges the filing of the appeal by the assessee in the Commissionerate on 10-6-2002. Hence, after setting aside the impugned order, we direct ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the assessee's appeal on merits, subject .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X