9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1185 - AT - Service TaxRestoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution - HELD THAT - In view of the submissions as made by the Ld. Advocate, the Order dt. 16/02/2018 is recalled and restored to its Original number - Appeal restored. Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT - The applicant/appellant had filed the appeal before the Lower Appellate Authority almost after expiry of six months and hence, the appeal was rejected as time barred - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT held that the Tribunal cannot condone the delay, beyond the condonable period, in filing the appeal before the Lower Appellate Authority - Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, Appeal rejection as time-barred, Tribunal's inability to condone delay beyond condonable period
In the judgment delivered by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the applicant/appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the restoration of their appeal, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution in Final Order No. 75173/2018 dated 16/02/2018. The Tribunal, upon considering the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate, recalled and restored the order to its original number. Subsequently, with the consent of both parties, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the applicant/appellant had filed the appeal before the Lower Appellate Authority after the expiry of six months, leading to the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises, which established that the Tribunal does not have the authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the condonable period. Therefore, in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment, the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court by the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal, Mr. P. K. Choudhary.
|
