9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1079 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Bar of limitation - Held that - impugned order of Commissioner (A) was received by the appellant on 30.4.2005 and the normal period for filing the appeal there against expired on or around 30.7.2005. Appeal stands filed on 29.8.2006 without there being any explanation for such delayed filing of appeal. There is no COD application on record. Accordingly, we are of the view that appeal is barred by limitation - Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Appeal dismissed on the point of limitation without going into merits of the case. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bengaluru, delivered by SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, dealt with the issue of limitation in filing an appeal. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal solely based on limitation without considering the merits of the case. The appellant argued that the relevant date for limitation should be the date of receipt, not the date of despatch. The appellant claimed a delay of at most 15 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A), which should have been condoned for a decision on the merits. However, the learned DR representing the Revenue pointed out that the order of the Commissioner (A) was passed on 27.4.2005 and received by the appellant on 30.4.2005, with the appeal filed before the Tribunal on 29.8.2006, significantly exceeding the permissible time limit for filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the appeal records, the Tribunal found the arguments of the Revenue to be correct. The impugned order from the Commissioner (A) was indeed received by the appellant on 30.4.2005, and the standard period for filing the appeal expired around 30.7.2005. However, the appeal was filed on 29.8.2006, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the substantial delay in filing. Additionally, there was no application for condonation of delay (COD) on record. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was clearly barred by limitation and, as such, dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits of the case. The judgment was pronounced in open court, finalizing the decision on the basis of the limitation issue raised by the appellant.
|
