TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well within the period of 180 days and, in other words, beyond the statutory period of 60 days for filing appeal. Petitioner's appeal was belated barely about 19 days. The explanation rendered by the petitioner was perfectly valid and delay ought to have been condoned. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Tribunal as well as dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner are set aside. The petitioner's appeal is restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) after condoning delay. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1876 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ MR HASIT DILIP DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, that the petitioner has an excellent case on merits in appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, by his impugned order dated 20.06.2014, rejected such appeal on the ground that the same was filed beyond a period which the Commissioner was authorized to condone. Against such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. There was a delay of 78 days in filing such appeal. The petitioner filed application for condonation of such delay. The Tribunal, however, rejected the petitioner's application of condonation of delay by an order dated 07.07.2015, upon which, the petitioner applied for rectification which also came to be rejected by the Tribunal by an order dated 18.11.2015. Hence, this petition. 4. Having he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stead of examining such grievance of the petitioner on merits, rejected the appeal on the ground of delay which was, in any case, was about 78 days and should not have been fatal to the petitioner's appeal. Our one option could have been, to condone such delay and remand the proceedings before the Tribunal. However, our second option was to strike down the very order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on condonation application of the petitioner and thereby save one full layer of litigation. We adopt the later option. 6. Before closing, we would have to deal with the authority cited by the counsel for the department in case of Raja Mechanical Company Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I reported in (2012) 12 SCC 613 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
