2018 (11) TMI 1291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cate For the Appellant Shri K. Murali, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG Appellant/applicant has filed a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal. After hearing both sides and for the reasons stated in the miscellaneous application, we condone the delay. With the consent of both parties, we proceed to decide the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demanded in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 85 of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....17 and in the process, the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) occurred which was well within the condonable period of one month from the due date as provided under Section 85 of the Act. He further submitted that Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that the appellant had failed to produce proof evidencing the receipt of the order by them on 06/02/2017. To counter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f his submissions, he place relied on the following case laws:- i. Triveni Glass Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2011(272) ELT 182 (All.)] ii. Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2010(19) STR 106 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. Narmada Sugar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST [2017(357) ELT 932 (Tri. Del.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6.....