9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby the CESTAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the above is that when the Petitioner could not file the Appeal in time within 60 days, he had sent a letter dated 18th July, 2007 to the Commissioner (Appeals) very categorically mentioning therein, that "due to unforeseen exigencies, we have been unable to file the Appeal, till date. We request you to grant us a further extension of 30 days to file the same."After the aforesaid letter, it appears that the Appellant had filed an Appeal immediately after the expiry of 60 days but within 30 days i.e. to say that there was a delay of 29 days in filing the above Appeal. 4. Mr. Sankhalecha, the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of 29 days. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed it to be presented before him and had issued an appropriate notice dated 18th September, 2007 for final hearing of the Appeal/Stay Application itself on merits, which is annexed at Exhibit-"I" to the Petition. Not only that, the Commissioner (Appeals) also heard the Appellant only on merits on 28th September, 2007 and had recorded all the submissions and at no point of time neither the Appellant nor the Appellant's partner was even told that the Appeal was beyond the time of 29 days and all the arguments of the Appellant's partner on merits were recorded. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) chose to pass the impugned order on 15th October, 2007 dealing with all the contentions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were prevented by sufficient cause from filing this Appeal late." 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the Appeal on merits at all and had decided the same only on the ground that the Appeal was beyond the time of 29 days and that the Appellant had no any specific reason for condoning the delay. Over and above, the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that even at the time of personal hearing no reasons whatsoever were given for condoning the delay and as such, the Commissioner (Appeals) had declined to condone the said delay of 29 days. 7. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner had approached the CESTAT and unfortunately, the CESTAT also had mechanically rejected the Appeal concurring with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the delay ought not have been condoned, then there was no question of issuing notice to the Appellant for hearing of the Appeal/stay application. In view of the said Notice, the Appellant obviously presumed that the delay had been condoned and the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully satisfied and therefore, the Appeal was allowed to be presented for being heard and the Appellant was given such an impression that the Commissioner (Appeals) had condoned the delay in filing the Appeal. 9. We are fully convinced that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Appeal to be presented and heard the same on merits, it means he was fully satisfied with sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 29 days and as such the same was condoned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
