TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant as time barred. We therefore need not to go into the merit of the case and to decide whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal being time barred is correct or otherwise. 2. Shri Purushottam Lohia, appearing himself being appellant submits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings of the impugned order. He relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Collr. Of C. Ex. Ahmedabad Vs. Pioma Indus. & Imperial Soda Factory 1994 (71) E.L.T. 773 (Tribunal). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. Since the Ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal being time barred, we need not to go into the merit of the case and only to decide whether the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by enclosing a copy of the impugned order sent to the appellant's company. Appellant has filed this appeal after more than 18 months. Thus, appellant was not vigilant and necessary importance of was not given. In the case of M/s. Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE 1995 (77) ELT 151 (CEGAT) it was held that if the appellant is negligent and not vigilant, delay is not condonable. In the case of M/s. ....