TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations are for condonation of delay in filing appeals against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 13-19-CE/APPL/06 dated 19-1-2006. The appeals have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 6th October 2009. On the face of it, there is delay of more than 3 years in filing these appeals. 2. Learned Consultant for the applicants submits that they came to know of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on 6-7-09 when they applied for copy of the order. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that personal hearing was granted on 17-8-05 and no one appeared on that date. However, opportunity was granted on 14-11-05 and also on 29-12-05 but the Advocate of the applicants had tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, I condone the delay, if any, in filing the appeals. After condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, the appeals are taken up for final disposal. 5.2 Considering the nature of dispute, the pre-deposit is waived and Appeals are taken up for final hearing. 6. These appeals arise out of the common order in appeal No. 13-19 CE/APPL/06 dated 19-1-2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation. All these appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20-10-04. The details relating to the dates of orders in original and the dates of show cause notice are reproduced below :- Sl. No. Appeal No. before CESTAT No. and date of sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een duly signed by the said Shri Rajiv Kumar Paliwal. On the last occasion, learned Consultant sought time to reply to this claim by the Department. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the signature is that of Shri Rajiv Kumar Paliwal, one of the partners. However, he drawing my attention to para 12 to the terms of the partnership deed submits that only the managing partner is entitled to receive the copies of the communication addressed to the partnership firm. He also submits that the copies of the partnership deed has been submitted to the Department. Under these circumstances, the services of these orders on a partner who is not authorised to receive such orders is not a valid service. He also submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunication from the appellant's firm signed by Shri Rajiv Kumar Paliwal seeking copies of the orders and acknowledgement that the same have been received on 13-8-03. Under these circumstances, there could be no doubt, at least on 13-8-2003, the appellants were' seryed with the orders of original authorities' if not earlier. If the benefit of doubt is yet to be extended to the appellant, the same can relate to the period prior to 13-8-03. Having held that the appellants have received the orders at least on 13-8-03, it is noticed that the appeals have been filed only on 21-10-04 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The delay in fling these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) is much beyond the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
