TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The delay of 107 days is not inordinate for the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal as the precious rights to agitate the issue arising out of the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem cannot be denied to the petitioner unless there is an inordinate delay which has not been answered properly and condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri T. Ramesh, for the Petitioner. Shri A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER By this common order both the writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 29-7-2010, passed by the 1st respondent/Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the respondents do not allege that the petitioner has purposely not filed the appeal in time and had filed appeal with a delay of 106 days only to drag on the proceedings. 5. Defending the impugned order, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has alternate remedy by way of appeal before this Court and by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. He therefore submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Authority under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also cannot be countenanced as the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 can be invoked only where there is substantial question of law. 8. In the light of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned orders with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority to number the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
