9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed after more than one month beyond the period of two months prescribed in Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 [Act, 1994], which cannot be condoned. 2. The short question to be decided in the present appeal is whether delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) being beyond the period of 2+1 month can be condoned or not. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2017 was received on 12.04.2017 alongwith the covering letter that the appeal against the said order would lie before the Commissioner (Appeal, Meerut - First). Referring to the letter dated 14.04.2014 and reminder dated 15.5.2017, it was submitted that a query was raised with the Department regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adun is not very long and he could have travelled immediately to Dehradun without waiting for the reservation of seat in train. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. From the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 was received by the appellant on 12.04.2017. It is also not in dispute that within receipt of two days of the said order on 14.04.2014, the appellant sought clarification for making the pre-deposit amount for filing the appeal and also sent a reminder on 15.05.2017 on account of the fact that the appeal was required to be filed, not as association of person, but by each of the person who was a joint owner. It is also not in dispute that the said order was received along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was beyond the jurisdictional limits of that city/district, it is necessary that it would require sometime for the appellant to approach that division. In the present case, the appellant took two days to reach Dehradun Division. 7. In this regard, the law laid down in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Civil Appeal No.4367 of 2004 dated 23.04.2015 supports the case of the appellant, where the Apex Court considered the issue of condonation of delay with reference to the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act in light of the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963 and series of decisions and held as under: "35. ....... We conclude, therefore, that the principle of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Here also, the letter dated 14.04.2017 by the appellant was replied by the Department vide letter dated 16.05.2017. The delay in responding to the letter by the Department by almost one month cannot be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the test laid down under the provisions of Section 14 are fully satisfied. Without going into too many details, if the limitation is computed from the date of the receipt of the order, i.e., 12.04.2017 till the date of filing of the appeal before the Dehradun Division on 13.07.2017, the total period comes to 91 days as against 90 days and if the period before the Meerut Division from 7.07.2017 to 11.07.2017 is excluded by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
