9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 817 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Held that - The order-in-original was received by the party on 23.07.2010 and an appeal against the same was filed only on 08.08.2011 with a delay far beyond the condonable period of delay prescribed under Section 85 - Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 was not applicable and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not empowered u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act to condone any delay beyond the condonable period of delay (30 days) - Court relied upon Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Waiver and stay application - no representation was made by the assessee despite notice nor any request for adjournment court dismissed the stay application decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal seeking waiver and stay without representation. 2. Delay in filing appeal beyond condonable period. 3. Legal position on condonation of delay under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay, but there was no representation despite multiple notices. The bench decided to proceed with the case in the absence of the appellant. 2. The learned Superintendent (AR) pointed out that the impugned order was not on merits but related to the delay in filing the appeal. The order-in-original was received on 23.07.2010, and the appeal was filed on 08.08.2011, which was beyond the condonable period of delay prescribed by Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C)], it was established that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. The lower appellate authority's decision was found to be in line with the legal position declared by the apex court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal along with the stay application. 3. The judgment emphasized that the decision of the lower appellate authority, in accordance with the legal position established by the Supreme Court, would not be interfered with by the Appellate Tribunal, any High Court, or even the Supreme Court. This underscores the significance of adhering to the prescribed timelines and legal provisions regarding the condonation of delays in filing appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.
|
