2015 (9) TMI 1026

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, and a further duty of Rs. 2,20,756/- be not demanded on yarn sent to an exporter for which no warehousing certificates were produced. After one round of remand, the adjudicating authority by an order dated 24th August 2007 confirmed the duty demand with interest and penalties. Against such order, statutory period of limitation prescribed was 60 days for filing appeal. Beyond such period, the Appellate Commissioner had the power to condone delay of 30 days. Admittedly, beyond this delay of period of 90 days, the Appellate Commissioner could not entertain any appeal. Under bonafide mistaken belief that such appeal could be presented on the date preceding the completion of period of 90 days, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no opportunity by the adjudicating authority also requires consideration. This Court has in the past taken a view that even though in cases where the Commissioner is powerless to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, the High Court is not devoid of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in rare exceptional cases to examine the validity and legality of the order of the adjudicating authority. Reference to one such decision can be made in the case of Lathia Industrial Supplies Company Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner (Appeal-I) dated 20th March 2013, in which the following observations were made: "5. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties, in facts off the case, we are inclined to put the mat....