9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 106 of 2011 , CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 107 of 2011 - - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but while affirming the order of Commissioner, the Tribunal recorded findings which is quoted below:- "9. Now, the issue to be considered is whether there was delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and whether the delay was within permissible limit of condonation of delay within the powers of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the same can relate to the period prior to 13.08.2003. Having held that the appellants have received the orders at least on 13.08.2003, it is noticed that the appeals have been filed only on 21.10.2004 before the Commissioner (Appeals).The delay in filing these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) is much beyond the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay. 10. The submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting these appeals as barred by time cannot be assailed." Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the person who had received the order, was not authorized to receive the communication. The findings have been recorded by the Tribunal that the date of receipt of the order i.e. 13th August, 2003 has to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
