2018 (6) TMI 991

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal on time bar. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of parts of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of First Schedul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant had sent the appeal on 13.7.2013 to LTU well before the expiry of the due date for filing appeal. Further, it was submitted that the date on which th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein the Hon'ble High Court held that when the appeal was wrongly filed within time before the Commissioner (A), who did not have jurisdiction which eventually resulted in 64 days delay in filing the appeal, then such appeal must be considered as filed within time. The Hon'ble High Court thereafter remanded the matter to the Commissioner (A) who had jurisdiction. Appellant also relied upon the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....puting the limitation period under Section 128. It is submitted that the ratio of aforesaid decision would squarely apply to the facts of the case and there would not be any delay in filing the appeal as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. The impugned order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal is illegal and opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court. The i....