2017 (6) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.8.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the appellant and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engage....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pursuing the appeal bonafidely filed wrongly before the Commissioner, Bangalore-I instead of Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore. The Commissioner (A) while considering the provisions of Section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE: 2008 (221) ELT 163 held that Commissioner (A) has no power to condone the dela....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Commissioner of Central Excise and was under a bona fide belief that appeal is pending before the Commissioner (A). He further submitted that when an appeal is filed before wrong forum, it was considered as a bona fide mistake and the time spent before wrong forum was excludable for calculating limitation as held by this Tribunal in the case of Taher Ali Indus and Projects Pvt. Ltd.: 2008 (23....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of delay as the appeal was filed within 30 days after the expiry of statutory period of 60 days. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) should have condoned the delay which was within the condonable limit as per Section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that appellant has wrongly filed the appe....