2008 (11) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Manish Mohan, SDR for Respondents. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)] - The present application is for condonation of the delay of 3 months and 9 days involved in filing the captioned appeal. A copy of the impugned order was received by the appellants on 06.03.08 and the appeal was filed on 16.09.2008 with the above delay. It is submitted that, as to remedy against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), there was confusion on the part of the appellant-corporation, an undertaking of the Government of Goa. Promptly after receipt of the impugned order, the matter was discussed at the level of the Managing Director of the Corporation, who wanted to ascertain whether the impugned order could be challenged before the Hon'ble High C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t further requirements of such an appeal to this Tribunal were also specified in the preamble. It is submitted by the Ld. SDR that, had the appellant-Corporation applied its mind to the preamble to the impugned order, it would have occurred to them that the correct remedy in law against the said order was before this Tribunal. In his rejoinder, Ld. Counsel submits that the correct remedy was not under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act mentioned in the preamble to the impugned order, but under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, Ld. SDR has not contested this submission. 2. After considering the submissions, we find that, though the preamble, if read by the functionaries of the Corporation, would have guided them to this Tribunal, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal as delayed with reference to the date of receipt of the order-in-original. The explanation of the Corporation was that the appeal filed with the Superintendent was within time and, therefore, the fresh appeal also should be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the earlier appeal was filed with the Superintendent. Alternatively, it was prayed that the time taken for filing appeal with the Superintendent and for matters connected therewith should be excluded for the purpose of computation of period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 5 of that Act 4. Today, it is the grievance of the appellant that these submissions were not considered by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). It is the submission of the Ld SDR t....