2012 (6) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... HE REVENUE.   Per Shri S.K.Gaule   Heard both sides.   2. The Applicant/Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 42/BOL/10 dated 25.03.2010 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, since it was filed beyond the time-limit prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.   3. The contention of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). The contention is that due to that reason, they did not file any application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). Even if the delay is counted beyond sixty days, the delay works out to 19 days, which is condonable as per Section 35 and they should be allowed to file an application for condonation of delay before the Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide all aspects afresh. The Applicant/Appellant are at liberty to file a Condonation of Delay Application. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be granted to the Applicant/Appellant. The present Appeal is allowed by way of remand. The Stay Petition also stands disposed of.   Dictated and pronounced in the open court. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X