2010 (12) TMI 173 - AT - Customs

Appeal - rejected on the ground of delay in filing appeal - appellant submitted that the partner has not at all received the Order-in-Original - signature of partner available in the original acknowledgement produced by the Revenue, are very similar and look as if signed by the same person, whereas the signatures of partmer in the latest papers are totally different - acknowledgement was obtained by jurisdictional Range officer and unless proved otherwise, it has to be held that partner who is stated to have signed the acknowledgement, has signed it - order of the Commissioner rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the same, upheld

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal

Analysis:
The appeal in question was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay in filing. The appellant claimed to have received the Order-in-Original on 3.2.06, while the Commissioner stated that the order was received on 13.4.04. The appellant argued that the partner had not received the order until the later date. However, upon examination of signatures, it was found that the signatures on the original appeal and the acknowledgement produced by the Revenue were similar, indicating that the partner had indeed signed the acknowledgement. The appellant failed to provide evidence to refute this, relying only on a general denial. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the authority to condone delays exceeding one year in filing appeals.

The Tribunal concluded that based on the evidence presented, the Order-in-Original was not received on 3.2.06 as claimed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to lack merit and was rejected. The decision highlighted the principle that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot extend the time limit for filing appeals beyond one year. The importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims in such cases was underscored, as mere denials without proof were insufficient to overturn the Commissioner's ruling.