2024 (2) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd Mr.Jitin Singhal, ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Arun Sheoran, ld. Authorised Representative for the Department. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that inadvertently two applications got filed before Commissioner (Appeals) seeking condonation of delay. The application which has been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) is not pertaining to the subject matter of the present appeal. Ld. Counsel has brought to the notice para 6.5 of the impugned order. The said para reiterates the ground of the application seeking condonation of delay. It has been mentioned that sub-clause (3) in the said para is sufficient to note that the cancelation of registration is not the subject matter of the present appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion for the delay which had occurred, there seems no infirmity in the order under challenge. This fact is sufficient to even not to grant the opportunity of re-hearing by remanding the matter back to Commissioner (Appeals). With these submissions, ld. Departmental Representative has prayed for the dismissal of the impugned appeal. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire record of the present appeal, I observe that the Order-in-Original in the present case was passed on 31st March, 2022 and the same is mentioned to have been received by the appellant on 15.04.2022. There is no dispute about the said date of receipt of order by the appellant. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was admittedly filed on 15.07.2022. ....