TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner’s father was not hospitalised even for a single day in the months of January, March, April and June 2014. Even in the months of February, May and July, 2014 the appellant’s father was hospitalised only for 4, 8 and 6 days respectively. In all, the hospitalisation was only for 18 days. It is not even the appellant’s case before the Tribunal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ), against the order passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore in ST/COD/20405/2015 in ST/23019/2014 dated 31.08.2015. By the said order, the CESTAT rejected the appellant s application to condone the delay of 171 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.04.2013. As has been noted by the Tribunal in its order, while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder appeal, it is evident that the appellant s father was admitted in hospital for 4 days in the month of February, 2014; 8 days in the month of May, 2014; and 6 days in the month of July, 2014 for liver and kidney ailment ie for a total period of 18 days in three different spells; the appellant sought condonation, of the delay in filing the appeal of over six months (171 days), on the ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to entertain the appeal, is only if a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact, and save a finding based on no evidence or one which is perverse, no substantial question of law can be said to arise necessitating interference in an appeal under Section 35G of the Act. It is evident from the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner s f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
