2014 (6) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Counsel. ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties finally. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal to the CESTAT by the impugned order dated 25.02.2013. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that it had been approached in a highly belated manner. The following question of law arises : "Did the Tribunal err in refusing to condone the delay and hear the appeal o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut this order and the matter came to light on 18.07.2012 when the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to it. It, therefore, wrote to the revisional authority seeking clarification on 28.08.2012. The revisional authority by a letter dated 06.09.2012 confirmed that the revision had been rejected on the basis of an interim report of 21.08.2012. 4. Thereupon the petitioner approached the Punjab an....