75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

January 2014

[2013] 39 taxmann.com 9 (New Delhi – CESTAT) Kamal Engineering Co. vs. CCE, Lucknow

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether, filing of fresh appeal beyond the prescribed time, after removing defects pointed out by office of Commissioner (Appeals) in the Original appeal which was otherwise filed in time, is liable to be dismissed as ‘time barred’ in the absence of application for condo nation of delay? Held, No.

Facts:
The Appellant filed appeal before Commissioner Appeals in time. However, on defects being pointed out by the office of Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was filed afresh removing those defects, which led to 10 days delay. The Appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Held:
Tribunal held that, since there was no delay in filing the original appeal and the new appeal was filed only to remove the defects pointed by office of Commissioner (Appeals) there cannot be said to be delay and matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merit.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2013] 39 taxmann.com 37 (Delhi HC) Indus Towers Ltd. vs. Union of India

India Exports vs. State of U.P. and others [2012] 47 vst 126(Allahabad).