TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellant/applicant has filed the application seeking condonation of delay of 948 days in filing the appeal as per Section 35B (5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant has further submitted in the application that they are aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.156/2013 dated 2.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Bangalore and have prefer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was also despatched to them and the same was duly acknowledged on 2.4.2013. The applicant has further stated that the internal enquiry conducted by the appellant revealed that the order purported to have been passed by the Commissioner (A) was not received by the applicant and there was a possibility that the cover received from the Commissioner (A) contained some other correspondence and not the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nformed by the office of the Commissioner that the applicant s request for restoration of the appeal could not be considered as there was no provision for restoration of appeal once the order has been passed. In the process, a delay of 948 days was caused in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay was not deliberate and intentional but occurred on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Preventive) vs. Nylex Traders: 2016 (332) ELT 399 (Bom.) vi. Philips Electronics India Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai: 2015 (327) ELT 258 (Tri.-Chennai) vii. CCE, Delhi-I vs. Hindustan Machines: 2015 (322) ELT 616 (Del.) viii. CC (I&G) vs. AASU EXIM P. Ltd.: 2016 (343) ELT 138 (Del.) 3. On the other hand, the appellant has relied upon the following authorities: i. CCE vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd....