Court : Jharkhand
..... sixteen months. the appeal was preferred after sixteen months from the date of which the order in original was passed. for ready reference section 85 of the finance act, 1994 reads as under: 85. appeals to the [commissioner] of central excise (appeals)- [(1) any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an ..... reasons: (i) order in original was passed by additional commissioner central excise on 31st december, 2012 which is appellable under section 85 (3-a) of the finance act, 1994. the period of limitation is sixty days. delay can be condoned by commissioner (appeals) if there are reasonable reasons. but commissioner (appeals) have no power, ..... appeals 2 were preferred against the order in original passed by additional commissioner, central excise, ranchi by the petitioners claiming benefit of section 14 of the limitation act of 1963, to exclude the time consumed in disposal of the writ petition before this court in computation of the delay. counsel for the petitioner has relied .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
..... , appeals were preferred against the order in original passed by additional commissioner, central excise, ranchi by the petitioners claiming benefit of section 14 of the limitation act of 1963, to exclude the time consumed in disposal of the writ petition before this court in computation of the delay. counsel for the petitioner has relied ..... reasons:- (i) order in original was passed by additional commissioner central excise on 31st december, 2012 which is appellable under section 85 (3-a) of the finance act, 1994. the period of limitation is sixty days. delay can be condoned by commissioner (appeals) if there are reasonable reasons. but commissioner (appeals) 4 have no ..... 25th march, 2014. thus, writ petition which was also preferred after the limitation period was over for preferring appeal u/s 85(3a) of the finance act, 1994. (iv) looking to the order in original dated 31st december, 2012 passed by additional commissioner, central excise the demand notice issued upon this petitioner was .....
Tag this Judgment!