2016 (9) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r and Shri C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Shri  G. Natarajan, Advocate For the Applicant Shri M. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER These two COD applications are filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 1188 days each in filing the respective appeals.  The impugned order is dated 18.11.2012 and the appeal should have been filed before Tribunal on or b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t considered by that authority, appellant sought for rectification of mistake  apparent in the OIO dt. 16.1.2012. Accordingly, they filed a ROM petition under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV on 16.4.2014.  Appellants were intimated by the said authority vide letter dt. 7.5.2014 that the above ROM petition was transferred to the ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y occurred is not due to any malafide, deliberate intention on the part of the appellant but due to genuine reasons as their ROM petition was already filed before the authority who passed the impugned order and non-service of ROM orders led to delay.  Hence he prayed the delay may be condoned. 3.  Shri M. Balamurugan, A.C (A.R) opposing the prayer of counsel submitted that the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a fide manner. Deliberate intention on the part of appellant cannot be attributed to the delay. On perusal of records, we find that rejection order of ROM was not served on the appellant or their authorized signatory, though it was furnished to the person on 14.1.2015 who was not authorized signatory of appellant.  As there were infirmities in the quantification of demand, the appellant sough....