2019 (2) TMI 669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Prasanth, Advocate appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) appellant had approached the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and vide judgment dt. 03.12.2014, the Hon'ble High Court had disposed the writ petition granting opportunity to the petitioner to file an appeal before the CESTAT against the impugned order and the CESTAT shall consider the question of limitation with regard to filing of such appeal. He argued that there was a direction by the High Court to the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits. Therefore appellant had filed the present appeal before the Tribunal along with application for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal excluding the time taken ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in the Section which would be at most 90 days. 4. Heard both sides. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground of being time-barred. Ld. counsel for appellant has submitted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide its order dt. 03.12.2014 has directed the Tribunal to decide the case on merits and not on the ground of time-bar. We reproduce the relevant para of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court as under : "3. Admittedly as against the impugned order, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. However, without ex....