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

.... appellant Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR For 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 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant has prayed for condonation of delay in 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 Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t appellant did not get any notice from the office 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (A) but was submitted in the office of the Commissioner (A) along with condonation 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 th....