TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri Amit Jain, DR, for the Appellant. Shri J. K. Mittal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice S.N. Jha, President]. - Heard the parties on the con donation of delay application. 2. Sub-section (3) of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for period of limitation of three months for filing appeal to the Tribunal. The period is to be reckoned from the date "on which the order sought to be appeal against is received by the assessee, the Board or by the Commissioner of Central Excise (now, the Committee of Chief Commissioners or the Committee of Commissioners), as the case may be". The appeal in the instant case has been filed after 441 days from the relevant date. The Revenue, appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, it appears that the Chief Commissioner, Delhi Zone, took the decision at his own level on 6-2-2007 which was communicated by the Additional Commissioner (CCU) vide letter No. 1745 dated 23-2-2007 to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula that the order-in-original dated 29-12-2006 "has been accepted by the Chief Commissioner (DZ)". The said letter, it may be mentioned, gave reference to the refund claim of Rs. 18,15,338/- which had become payable to the respondent in terms of the said impugned order-in-original dated 29-12-2006. 5. The case of the Revenue is that the decision taken by the Chief Commissioner on 6-2-2007 was not in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. K. Raheja Development Corporation v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no indulgence can be shown; that would amount to giving premium to the laches of the Department. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of parties. The point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the appeal was deliberate and intentional. 8. We have mentioned above that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 86, as it stood prior to 11-5-2007, the decision on the question as to whether order of the Commissioner of Central Excise is to be objected to, that is, appealed against or not, was to be taken by the Board. We were informed in course of hearing that it was the practice in the Department under some administrative Circular in terms of which the Chief Commissioner was required to give h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reviewing' the earlier decision which had no legal sanctity, as stated above. Beyond this, we make no comments as the argument pertains to merits of the case; after the appeal is entertained, the merit can be examined by the Tribunal at the appropriate stage. 10. We are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal during the intervening period between the communication of the order-in-original to the Commissioner to the Chief Commissioner (which led to the order dated 6-2-2007) and the ultimate decision of the Committee of Chief Commissioners was not deliberate and intentional, and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is lit to be condoned. 11. In the result, the delay is condoned and the condonation of delay application is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
