2019 (6) TMI 1437 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 211 days in filing appeal - service of Order-In-Original - HELD THAT - Apart from the fact that the submission of the learned advocate is not supported by any documentary evidence on record, the register showing the signature of the appellant is a Dispatch Register and the same is showing the dispatch of the order, wherein the details of the Order-In-Original including the numbers stands shown. This fact by itself establishes that it was the order which was handed over personally to the appellant s representative. The period of limitation of 60 days starts running from the date of receipt of the impugned order. The same would in the present case would expire on or around 02 March, 2015. The appeal admittedly stands filed on 01 July, 2016 with a delay of 211 days - It is settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act. Inasmuch as the delay in the present appeals in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was to the extent of 211 days, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant's claim of rebate was partially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the filing of three appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) noted a delay of 211 days in filing the appeals, which exceeded the 60-day limitation period from the date of receipt of the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone such a significant delay beyond the prescribed 30-day limit, as per established legal principles.

The appellant's representative disputed the date of receipt of the original order, arguing that the signatures on the dispatch register were only for the receipt of the cheque, not the order itself. However, the dispatch register clearly indicated the details of the Order-In-Original, including numbers, establishing that the order was indeed handed over to the appellant's representative on the specified date. Additionally, the discrepancy in the rebate amount received by the appellant compared to the claimed amount should have prompted immediate action or inquiry, which was not pursued by the appellant after the initial transaction.

The Appellate Authority upheld the rejection of the appeals on the grounds of being time-barred due to the substantial delay in filing. Citing legal precedent, the Authority affirmed that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the jurisdiction to condone delays exceeding the statutory limit. Consequently, all three appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed, and the miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly.