TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o doubt, in terms of section 85 of the Finance Act, the appeal was not filed within 60 days of the receipt of order. However, it has apparently been filed before expiry of 90 days from the said date. As per said section 85 itself, the Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to condone the delay within 30 days provided the delay has been sufficiently explained. It is observed that the application as has been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) apparently has no sufficient explanation for the impugned delay. However, it is also clear that the application does not pertain to the impugned issue/case. The reason given in the said application is about the order of cancellation of registration of the appellant. Whereas the Order-in-Original in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that inadvertently two applications got filed before Commissioner (Appeals) seeking condonation of delay. The application which has been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) is not pertaining to the subject matter of the present appeal. Ld. Counsel has brought to the notice para 6.5 of the impugned order. The said para reiterates the ground of the application seeking condonation of delay. It has been mentioned that sub-clause (3) in the said para is sufficient to note that the cancelation of registration is not the subject matter of the present appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel has also brought to the notice the another application which was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Para 6 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient to even not to grant the opportunity of re-hearing by remanding the matter back to Commissioner (Appeals). With these submissions, ld. Departmental Representative has prayed for the dismissal of the impugned appeal. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire record of the present appeal, I observe that the Order-in-Original in the present case was passed on 31st March, 2022 and the same is mentioned to have been received by the appellant on 15.04.2022. There is no dispute about the said date of receipt of order by the appellant. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was admittedly filed on 15.07.2022. No doubt, in terms of section 85 of the Finance Act, the appeal was not filed within 60 days of the recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal and 26-28 days spent for arrange the said amount and deposited to CBIC on 14/07/2022. 9. Perusal thereof along with the entire application at-least clarifies that the application pertains to the subject matter of the present appeal. 10. In the given circumstances and keeping in view the observation of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (28) ELT 185 (S.C.) that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late, it is held that appellant herein, at-least be given an opportunity to put-forth the appropriate application. With these observations, I deem it to be a fit case to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
