AJINKYA ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rules. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Perused the Affidavit in reply dated 25th June, 2008 filed on behalf of the Respondents.

(2.) By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the further order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by the CESTAT, whereby the CESTAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the above is that when the Petitioner could not file the Appeal in time within 60 days, he had sent a letter dated 18th July, 2007 to the Commissioner (Appeals) very categorically mentioning therein, that "due to unforeseen exigencies, we have been unable to file the Appeal, till date. We request you to grant us a further extension of 30 days to file the same."After the aforesaid letter, it appears that the Appellant had filed an Appeal immediately after the expiry of 60 days but within 30 days i.e. to say that there was a delay of 29 days in filing the above Appeal.