2019 (2) TMI 1171 - AT - Central Excise

Time Limitation - Rebate claim - sanction of amount of ₹ 79,146/- by way of credit in Cenvat Credit account is objected - Held that - The Order-in-Original was announced on 22.09.2017 and appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 5 months over and above, the period of 90 days. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of the order under challenge has specifically observed that the original order was dispatched on the date of order itself to the appellant - There is no other evidence as could be produced by the appellant about receiving the said order on 2nd April 2018 i.e. after a delay of 8 months. In the absence of any evidence to said effect and in absence of any other reasonable explanation by the appellant even in the grounds of appeal, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.186 dated 28.06.2018.
2. Dispute regarding the sanction of balance amount in Cenvat Credit account.
3. Appeal dismissed due to filing beyond the period of 90 days.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed 21 rebate claims for ?38,25,664 on goods exported between December 2016 to April 2017. While the refund claims were allowed, the sanction of ?79,146 as credit in Cenvat Credit account was objected to by the appellant. The appeal was filed against this objection, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being filed beyond the 90-day period.

2. The Order-in-Original was announced on 22.09.2017, and the appeal was filed with a delay of more than 5 months beyond the stipulated 90 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the original order was dispatched on the date of the order itself to the appellant. The appellant failed to provide any evidence of receiving the order on 2nd April 2018, after an 8-month delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) was statutorily bound not to condone the delay beyond 90 days, as per the provisions. Referring to the case law of Singh Enterprises, it was highlighted that the appellate authority can only entertain the appeal by condoning the delay up to 30 days after the expiry of the normal 60-day appeal period. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the above discussion and legal provisions. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.