TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is a delay of one year. The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone such delay as per the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the same were forwarded to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), hence there is no delay in filing the appeal. The appellant also relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of AT & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore reported in 2007 (219) ELT 461 and Nova Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2009 (245) ELT 815. 4. The learned SDR appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal within the normal period of limitation. 5. The contention of the appellant is that the appeal has been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the normal period of limitation. As per the acknowledgement on record, which has been filed by the appellant, papers were forwarded to the office of Customs and Central Excise through courier, Overnite Express, and the same were received in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons relied upon by the appellant. In the present case there is an acknowledgment slip which was received by the appellant showing the delivery of the papers in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Aurangabad and the appellant had not made any effort to retrieve the papers or to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the normal period. As per the provisions of Section 35 of t....