9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 344 - AT - Central ExciseApplication for Rectification of Mistake Bar of Limitation - Power to condone delay of how much days Delay of 233 days - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days in terms of Section 35 was decided against assessee Held that - The appellants advocate, at the time of appearance before the Tribunal on 7.2.2012 fairly agreed that there was delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the legal issue that the Commissioner has no power to condone the huge delay - The submission that the advocate, appearing today as he was not the advocate who caused appearance on 7.2.2012, when the other advocate appearing for the appellant agreed to the date of receipt of order by the assessee and consequent delay of 233 days in filing the appeal cannot be accepted there was no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as there is no mistake Decided against Assessee.
Issues:
1. Tribunal's decision on limitation for condonation of delay. 2. High Court's order regarding rectification of mistake application. 3. Service of order-in-original and its impact on limitation for filing appeal. 4. Definition and role of an authorized representative in serving legal orders. 5. Advocate's admission of delay in filing appeal and relevant legal precedents. Issue 1: Tribunal's decision on limitation for condonation of delay The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s rejection of appeals based on limitation, citing settled law against the assessee regarding the Commissioner's power to condone delays beyond 30 days under Section 35. The applicant's appeal was consequently dismissed. Issue 2: High Court's order regarding rectification of mistake application The High Court granted the applicant two weeks to file a rectification of mistake application following the Tribunal's order. However, the applicant submitted the application after the granted period, leading to potential rejection on this ground. Issue 3: Service of order-in-original and its impact on limitation for filing appeal The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the order-in-original was served on the applicant's employee on a specific date, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The applicant's claim of delay due to the loss of the order was scrutinized, emphasizing the need for timely action upon receipt of legal documents. Issue 4: Definition and role of an authorized representative in serving legal orders The discussion revolved around the concept of an authorized representative for a limited company, highlighting the necessity of proper service to the intended recipient or their authorized agent. The distinction between an advocate and an authorized representative was crucial in determining the validity of service in this case. Issue 5: Advocate's admission of delay in filing appeal and relevant legal precedents The advocate representing the applicant acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and referenced legal precedents establishing the limitations on the Commissioner's power to condone significant delays. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in arguments presented by different advocates and rejected the application based on the lack of a mistake in the original order. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the various legal issues addressed by the Tribunal, High Court, and Commissioner (Appeals) concerning limitation, service of legal orders, and the role of authorized representatives in legal proceedings. The detailed examination of each issue provides a clear understanding of the decision-making process and the legal principles applied in this case.
|
