Appeal reinstated after delay issue; formal application required within 30 days to avoid dismissal.

The appeal was initially dismissed as time-barred due to a 12-day delay beyond the 60-day period for filing. The appellant's informal request for condonation of delay was insufficient, requiring a formal application with valid reasons. The judgment allowed the appeal by remanding it back for compliance with the formal application process within 30 days. Failure to meet this requirement would result in the restoration of the initial dismissal order. The decision emphasized adherence to legal provisions and procedural requirements for filing appeals.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to dismissal as time-barred.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to a delay of 12 days beyond the 60-day period from the receipt of the original authority's order. The appellant did not formally apply for condonation of the delay before the Commissioner (Appeals), although the Counsel claimed to have raised the issue during a personal hearing, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The period of limitation for filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was 60 days, with a provision to condone a delay of up to 30 days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.

2. The proviso to Section 35 required the appellants to make a formal application for condonation of the 12-day delay. The Counsel's oral application was deemed insufficient as the proviso mandated the appellate authority to be satisfied with valid reasons, preferably in an affidavit, for filing the appeal late. As this requirement was not met, the judgment inclined to provide an opportunity for the appellant to comply with the legal provision. The Counsel undertook to fulfill this requirement, leading to the decision to allow the appeal by way of remand.

3. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the application for condonation of delay, to be filed within thirty days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard in both the application and the appeal. Failure to file the condonation application within the stipulated time would result in the restoration of the impugned order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to the delay in filing the appeal, the legal provisions governing condonation of delay, and the procedural steps to be followed for compliance with the law.

---