Silicon Marketing Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. after examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself is a fit one to be finally disposed off at this stage.accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal.2. the appellants had received order-in-original dated 28-6-2005 of the jurisdictional deputy commissioner on 1-7-2005. they filed an appeal against that order with the commissioner (appeals) on 22-12-2005. under section 85 of the finance act, 1994, the appellants had three months for filing such an appeal. the provision of law, however, enabled them to file appeal within a further period of three months, in which event, the appellate authority was competent to condone the delay of the appeal if sufficient cause for the delay was shown by the appellants.thus the appellants had a total period of six months (three months prescribed for filing the appeal without delay plus three months prescribed for filing it along with delay condonation application) for filing the appeal and this period was to expire on 30-12-2005. in other words, the appeal (filed on 22-12-2005) was filed within the condonable period of delay prescribed under section 85 ibid. ld. commissioner (appeals) did not condone this delay. before him, the part had submitted that he was prevented by his illness from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, but no proof of any illness was produced. ld. commissioner, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the parts as time-barred for want of evidence of the reason stated for condonation of the delay. in the present appeal before us, it is not claimed that any medical certificate was produced before the lower appellate authority. however, the appeal before us is accompanied by a medical certificate dated 25-12-2005 issued by one doctor n. vashistar subramaniam (regd. no. a.4154) of sri arunthadhi vashistar, sidhha medicine & astrological research centre (eye and dental). on the face of this document, dr. n.v. subramaniam is attached to a medical institution for eye and dental ailments. the certificate, however, says that one shri s. mohideen shareef (not the appellant) was treated by the doctor for "gastric & ulcer". we have also noticed that the text of the certificate dated 25-12-2005 is handwritten in apparently fresh ink. this shabby document which is seemingly not genuine does not, in any way, support the appellant's plea for condonation of delay by the commissioner (appeals). the impugned order is only liable to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself is a fit one to be finally disposed off at this stage.

Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal.

2. The appellants had received Order-in-Original dated 28-6-2005 of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 1-7-2005. They filed an appeal against that order with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 22-12-2005. Under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants had three months for filing such an appeal. The provision of law, however, enabled them to file appeal within a further period of three months, in which event, the appellate authority was competent to condone the delay of the appeal if sufficient cause for the delay was shown by the appellants.

Thus the appellants had a total period of six months (three months prescribed for filing the appeal without delay plus three months prescribed for Filing it along with delay condonation application) for filing the appeal and this period was to expire on 30-12-2005. In other words, the appeal (filed on 22-12-2005) was filed within the condonable period of delay prescribed under Section 85 ibid. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not condone this delay. Before him, the part had submitted that he was prevented by his illness from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, but no proof of any illness was produced. Ld. Commissioner, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the parts as time-barred for want of evidence of the reason stated for condonation of the delay. In the present appeal before us, it is not claimed that any medical certificate was produced before the lower appellate authority. However, the appeal before us is accompanied by a medical certificate dated 25-12-2005 issued by one Doctor N. Vashistar Subramaniam (Regd. No. A.4154) of Sri Arunthadhi Vashistar, Sidhha Medicine & Astrological Research Centre (Eye and Dental). On the face of this document, Dr. N.V. Subramaniam is attached to a Medical Institution for Eye and Dental ailments. The certificate, however, says that one Shri S. Mohideen Shareef (not the appellant) was treated by the doctor for "Gastric & Ulcer". We have also noticed that the text of the certificate dated 25-12-2005 is handwritten in apparently fresh ink. This shabby document which is seemingly not genuine does not, in any way, support the appellant's plea for condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is only liable to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly.