2012 (6) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sides. 2. The Applicant/Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.55/BOL/10 dated 25.03.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeal-IV), Central Excise, Kolkata, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal for filing the same beyond the period of sixty days. 3. The contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant/Appellant is that on the preamble .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contention is that the delay of one day is condonable as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has a power to condone the delay of thirty days beyond sixty days and the contention is that the delay is caused due to the time-limit of three months and the address mentioned in the preamble to the impugned Order-in-Original. It is also their contention tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Appeals) to decide all the aspects relating to the present Appeal, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Applicant/Appellant. The Applicant/Appellant are at liberty to file a condonation of delay application before the Commissioner (Appeals). They can also produce the documentary evidence in regard to the delay caused in filing the appeal. The Appeal is thus allowed by way .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X