9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 59 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay Delay beyond 30 days not condonable Held that - The application filed before the Tribunal is infructuous as the appeal was filed before this Tribunal is not in time Following Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, JSR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - the Commr. (Appeal) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond 90 days i.e. condonable period of 30 in addition to the statutory 60 days - the Commissioner (Appeal) has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days in addition to statutory period of 60 days in filing the appeal Decided against Assessee.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) beyond the statutory limit.
The judgment pertains to a Misc. application filed for condonation of delay before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals). The Ld. Advocate for the applicant argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as the order of the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) was communicated on 2nd February, 2011, and the appeal was filed on 18th April, 2011. However, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal stating that it was filed after around 8 months, beyond the permissible limit. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue cited the principle of law from the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, JSR- 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC), emphasizing that the Commr. (Appeal) lacks the authority to condone the delay beyond 30 days in addition to the statutory period of 60 days for filing an appeal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found the Misc. application to be infructuous as the appeal filed before the Tribunal was not within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the Commr. (Appeal) due to being filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days in addition to the statutory 60 days. Citing the precedent set in the case of Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal affirmed that the Commr. (Appeal) does not possess the authority to extend the time limit beyond the specified period. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, thereby disposing of the Special Petition and dismissing the Misc. application as infructuous. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Dr. D.M. Misra.
|
