9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. The Commissioner had not taken up the matter for hearing but by his letter dated 22-1-06, he has returned the papers to the appellants. Copy of the said letter was not mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner and they had also filed an application for condonation of delay. No mention has been made in the letter that the office has received the appeal papers beyond the statutory period of 60 days and further period of 30 days. He submits that the Commissioner ought to have given a hearing and also given a finding on the condonation application filed by them, where they had clearly stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 955 (Tri. -Del.)] wherein also it was held that the Commissioner should pass a speaking Order. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel and perused the affidavit of the appellants and the counsel filed in the matter. The appeal has been filed by the counsel on behalf of the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have issued not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the confusion arising in the appellants and the advocate's mind the delay has arisen. There is no negligence on their part and hence, the COD application is allowed. As the Commissioner has not decided the matter in respect of the COD application filed by the appellant along with the appeal papers, the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall grant the appellants an op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
