<m/ HIGH GOURT CF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W D.B.: Hon'ble Shn' Satish K. Amihotri &- A Hon’ble Shlji Radhe sgyam gharmg, JJ, Tax Case No.55 of 2010 ‘ Unionoflndia Through ' Commissionért "jc‘éntrga, Excise and Customsp Centrai i‘ Excise Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, Tikarapara, Raipur (C6)“ 492 L 001. r i F . versus 1. Customs Excise and Service Tax VEI Appeuate Tribunai Jhraugh“.the Registrar, West Blo€k No.2; R.K.: Puram, New Deihi 110066;? 2., Mls.Alok Feiro Auys Lm, 458-1, 459 Urla indush’iai Area, Raipur (CGf ' ‘ Resgnden‘s Present: shri Bhishma Kinger. counsei f0! the appellant; Vi ‘ Shri Ashish Shrivasmva, counsel for respondent No.2”. Aggeai under Section 35 G of the Central Emise Act, 1954 regg igu section 83 of the Finance Ag, 1% ORAL ORDER I. (Passed on 3'“ August, 261 .1) Héard on admission. 2. The instant appeaihas been filed under-Section 35 G of the Central Excise ALcttimpugning order dated). 22.62969 (Annaxura‘ AH), whereby the appeal iiiedqby the C‘C.E., Raipur, against order dated 02.7.2098, passed by‘the chief Commissioner, nae been dismissed on the ground ofdeiay. . 3. The substaniial question of law arises for consideration in this ls appeai is whetherwth‘e application for condonatipn of deiay nan be rejected without specifying reasons,in the appeal filed by the C.C.E. Raipur? 4. y Shri Kinger, learned counsel for the appellant submits that application for oondonation of delay of 25 days in preferring the , v v h) %&/ i appeal against order dated 18.7.2008, passed by the Commissioner v of Central Excise, Raipur was tiled and therein, suftioient explanation r was given, particulariy, “the fact that the Committee of Commissioners had taken some time to take decision for: fiting the appeal and thereafter some time was taken in processing the papersf- _‘ and that also on account of the fact that the Committeectomprioed of ’ Commissioner - ,Raipur and Commissioner — Nagpurh who are v ' t located at different places, thqs, insidecision couid not be taken at - the earliest and delayof 25 days occurred in filing the appeai. = 5. Shri Ashish Shrivatava, learned counsel for respondent Not2 ‘~ submits that the explanation given by the appeilént is not w satisfactory._ Nothing prevented holding of the meetingvof the 1 Committee of Commissioners at the earliest as the-distance between Raipur and Nagpur is not more. He submits that undgr the pg‘ovisianr of law of limitation each day’s delay should be explained in tiiing the appeaL 6.. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the ease, i we are satisfied that the expianation offered by/the appetlentywas satisfactory and also the dismissal of the appeal, virttially on no ~ ground, by the Tribunal was not just and proper. The question, as t framed above, is answered accordingly. Delay in tiling the appealis hereby condonded and the instant appeal is allowed The matter is Ii Bini remitted to the Tribunal for being heard on meritsr‘ No order asto cost. l Sd/- l sd/- Satish K. Agnihmri sd/- R-S- Sharma l Judge Judge