TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], while dealing with Section 35 of the Central Excise Act has held that the Commissioner did not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the day of expiry of 60 days prescribed for filing statutory appeals. Therefore, having regard to the decision of Supreme Court no merit found in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut it was not to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority who vide order dated 26.9.2012 confirmed the demanded amount. 3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act before the Commissioner and since it was filed beyond the maximum prescribed period of 3 months, the Commissioner dismissed the same vide order dated 17.11.2014 on the ground of limitation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter: Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. 5. The above quoted provision is identical to Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
