2019 (12) TMI 935

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been adjourned more than eight number of time. The said conduct of appellant is sufficient to opine that appellant is not interested in pursuing the present appeal and that there is a miserable lack of due diligence on part of the appellant. 2. At this stage learned AR has brought to the notice that the Commissioner (Appeals), vide order No. 220/2018 dated 18.04.2018, has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation. It is the said order which has been assailed before this Tribunal. Keeping in view the afore observed conduct of the appellant and the said mention on behalf of the department, the appeal in hand is disposed of as follows: 3. The relevant facts in brief for the said disposal are that the appellant is engaged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner (Appeals) has to be filed within 60 days of the receipt of the order. Though, Commissioner (Appeals) is allowed by the statute to condone the delay but only upto the extent of 30 days that too when a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 60 days of the receipt of order is shown to the satisfaction of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. It is perused from the order-under-challenge that Commissioner (Appeals) gave a personal hearing to the appellant on 10.04.2018. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) is silent about any reason to have been given by the appellant for the impugned delay. Perusal of copy of the appeal as was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) (attached on this record) shows that it is only C....