TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent(s) No. 2 - 3 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the CESTAT rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and thereby confirming an order dated 20.06.2014 passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both the orders of the adjudicating authority i.e. the order-in-original as well as one correcting the same later on. The petitioner explained the delay by suggesting that the clearance of files could not be done, as expected and, further, that the petitioner has an excellent case on merits in appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, by his impugned order dated 20.06.2014, rejected such ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrigendum issued by the competent authority on 29.11.2013. It was only then that the period of limitation would start to run against the petitioner. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, counted the starting point of limitation from the original order dated 29.08.2013. It was, therefore, that the Commissioner held a belief that the appeal was beyond limitation by 118 days, a period which he could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been condoned. 5. The petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, instead of examining such grievance of the petitioner on merits, rejected the appeal on the ground of delay which was, in any case, was about 78 days and should not have been fatal to the petitioner's appeal. Our one option could have been, to condone such delay and remand the proceedings before the Tribunal. Howeve....