2018 (5) TMI 1918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugust, 2012, whereby the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi dated 27th April, 2009 in Order-in-Appeal No. 39/JSR/2009 of not condoning the delay of 11 days has been confirmed by CESTAT, Kolkata. 2. Having heard Learned Counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Misc. Appeal Nos. 213-215/2012 was preferred, because initially the appeal, which was preferred by this appellant, before the CESTAT, Kolkata was dismissed ex parte vide order dated 25-4-2012 and thereafter, Miscellaneous Application was preferred for quashing and setting aside the ex parte order which has also been dismissed vide order dated 30-8-2012. 3. It appears that C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order passed by CESTAT, Kolkata in Appeal No. M- 209-211/Kol/2012 it appears that before the CESTAT, Kolkata this appellant instituted Appeal No. EA-549/2009 against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). This appeal was dismissed ex parte vide order dated 25th April, 2012 and to set aside this ex parte order, Misc. Appeal No. 215/2012 was preferred by this appellant which was also dismissed vide order dated 30th August, 2012. From these two orders, it appears that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the employee, concerned with this appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), had left the services of the Company without informing. Thus, there was reasonable reason before the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay of 11 ....