M/S ARIHAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ladda, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) Grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the present petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) is dismissed on the ground that the same is not filed within limitation and the Commissioner has no power to condone the delay. Mr. Ladda, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohan and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2625 to submit that the subsequent corrigendum would not extend the period of limitation and the original declaration is only relevant for computing the period of limitation. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, reported in 2006 (3) STR 423, Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (177) ELT 99, and Aircell Digilink India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, reported in 2004 (1973) ELT 31 and submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay of more than 30 days.