2015 (6) TMI 502 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand u/s 11A - Interest u/s 11AB - Penalty u/s 11AC - Bar of limitation - Held that - Issue is already covered by the judgment of hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . In the said case, the hon ble Supreme Court has held that when the statute prescribes a particular period of limitation the same cannot be condoned even by the Supreme Court as that would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. In view of the said decision of the hon ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant receiving a show cause notice for recovery of an amount under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. The appellant filed an appeal beyond the permissible period of 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days, even after considering the date of receipt of the order-in-original. The issue revolved around the timeliness of filing the appeal under Section 35 of the Act.

The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, where it was held that a prescribed period of limitation cannot be condoned, even by the Supreme Court, as it would defeat the purpose of the specific provision. Relying on this decision, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissed the appeal and the stay petition. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and limitations set forth in the law, as established by the Supreme Court precedent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to dismiss the appeal due to its untimely filing, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the significance of statutory timelines and the inability to condone delays beyond the specified periods, as established by the Supreme Court precedent. The dismissal of the appeal and the stay petition was based on the strict adherence to the statutory provisions regarding the filing of appeals in excise matters.