TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal was presented on 27th August, 2013 is against the material on record. We are therefore, of the opinion that the appeal was filed within 60 days. - first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in holding that the appellant had misrepresented the fact that the order was served upon them on 28th June, 2013. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 125 of 2015 , Central Excise Appeal No. - 126 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : Ashok Bhatnagar For the Respondent : Vinod Kant ORDER We have heard Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, the learned counsel for the appellant and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the stipulated period of 60 days as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act (2), 1994 and that there was no misrepresentation. Section 85 of the Finance Act provides as under: Section 85. Appeals to the [Commissioner] of Central Excise (Appeals).- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). (2) Every appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (3) ........... (3A) An appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority, made on and after the Finance Bill, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them on 28th June, 2013. The appellant in paragraph 1 to 1.8 of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal has clearly explained as to how he had treated the original order to have been served upon them on 28th June, 2013. Such explanation given only explains as to how the appellant had treated the order to have been served upon them on 28th June, 2013. Such explanation given clearly indicates that there was no misrepresentation to the effect that the order was not served on 26th June, 2013 but on 28th June, 2013. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that a liberal approach should have been adopted by the Tribunal as well as by the appellate authority. The delay of two days was not fatal and a liberal approach should have been adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
