TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtified copy to the Appellant on 27.04.2017, they received the copy of the Order-in-Original and filed the Appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It would not be out of place to mention that the Appellant is not going to gain in adopting the delay tactics in filing the Appeal as has been observed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). It is observed from the records that against the adjudicated demand of Rs.11,36,469/-, the Appellants have already paid Rs.10,19,283/-, which has also been appropriated in the Order-in-Original. The matter is remanded to the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the Appeal on merits without going into the aspect of limitation - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). - Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to inform you that the complaint of Non Delivery of Article of Speed post letters with Transaction No. EE448769014IN on 18/08/2016 of shilling g.p.o.- 793001 is settled on 09/10/2017 with the following information that delivered on 30.08.2016 . 4. Accordingly, he was not convinced to condone the delay of 220 days and he rejected the Appeal before him as time barred without going into the merits of the case. The Appellant subsequently filed an RTI Application with the Central Public Information Officer, Director of Postal Services, Agartala Division on 13.11.2017 i.e. after passing of the impugned order and the Agartala Postal Division replied to the RTI vide No.CCC/RTI ACT/2017-18/S.Saha dated 08.12.2017, which reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the Appellant is not going to gain in adopting the delay tactics in filing the Appeal as has been observed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). I also observe from the records that against the adjudicated demand of Rs.11,36,469/-, the Appellants have already paid Rs.10,19,283/-, which has also been appropriated in the Order-in-Original. 6. Ld.Advocate for the Appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of OSA Shipping Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai reported as 2015 (325) E.L.T. 486 (Mad.), relevant paras of which are as follows:- 3 . It is the case of the appellant that as against the Order-in-Original dated 19-2-2009, it filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything by delaying the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, after having paid more than 50% of the demand. 7. These are all cases, in which, contentious issue both on merits as well as with regard to the reason for the delay are raised. In such cases, entertaining an appeal by condoning the delay, especially, when more than 50% of the tax demand has been paid, would be the appropriate solution. 8 . Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to take up the appeal for disposal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. In view of the above discussion a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
