9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 744 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay assessee pleaded for condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the appeal Held that - The appeal cannot be considered as submitted by the learned Superintendent (AR) - the question of condonation of delay becomes irrelevant - the appeal has to be rejected on the ground of delay and merits - The question of considering the stay application also does not arise - Commissioner (A) could not have condoned the delay at all - the question of entertaining the appeal before the Tribunal also does not arise as held in SINGH ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR( 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) appeal decided against assessee.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Analysis: The judgment revolves around the condonation of a delay of 104 days in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Superintendent (AR) highlighted that the appeal was rejected on the grounds of being filed belatedly. The delay before the Commissioner (A) was more than 3 months, even after considering the normal limitation period and the condonable period. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellant's claim that the order-in-original was not received at the Visakhapatnam office, and considered the date of receipt as the date when a copy was sent to the appellant's Hyderabad Office. The order was dispatched on 30.7.2010 and received in Hyderabad on 2.8.2010. Despite allowing a condonable period of three months, the appeal should have been filed before 1st February 2011, but it was actually filed on 9.5.2011. The Commissioner (A) could not condone the delay, leading to the rejection of the appeal before the Tribunal, as per the decision in the case of Singh Enterprises (2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)). On the merits of the case, it was argued that the appeal could not be considered. Consequently, the question of condonation of delay became irrelevant. Thus, the appeal was rejected on the grounds of both delay and merits. The judgment also stated that since the appeal itself was rejected, there was no need to consider the stay application. Ultimately, the application for condonation of delay, the stay application, and the appeal were all rejected. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
