9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 669 - AT - Central ExciseTime limitation - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - demand of duty on Aluminium Dross which is a by product emerging during the course of manufacturing process - Held that - There is no direction to dispose the appeal on the merits of the case. When the commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground of being time-barred, this Tribunal cannot go into the merits of the matter. There are no flaws in the rejection of the appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against time-barred order by Commissioner (Appeals) - Direction by High Court to consider appeal on merits - Condonation of delay - Demand of duty on Aluminium Dross - Precedents cited - Powers of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed as time-barred. The appellant had previously approached the High Court, which directed the appellant to file an appeal before CESTAT and consider the question of limitation. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal, excluding the time taken for pursuing the matter in the High Court. The issue pertained to the demand of duty on Aluminium Dross, citing relevant case laws supporting the appellant's position. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant in a similar case. The respondent supported the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the High Court's order did not specifically direct consideration of the appeal on merits. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision limiting the Commissioner (Appeals) powers to condone delays beyond a prescribed period. The impugned order rejected the appeal based on being time-barred, and the High Court's judgment did not direct a consideration of the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal concluded that it could not delve into the merits of the case as the appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred. Citing the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and thus rejected the appeal.
|
