9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 120 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of more than one month after the expiry of normal period of limitation - power of Commissioner (appeals) to condone delay - HELD THAT - Even if the appellant stand that the order was not originally received by them is accepted we find that the copy of the order was again provided to them under the cover of letter dated 30.04.2012. As such, even if the letter dated 30.04.2012 is taken as the relevant date the appeal filed in October, 2013 is barred by limitation. It is well settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of one month provided under the Act. Reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT . Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Time bar for filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved the issue of time bar for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of a delay of more than one month after the normal period of limitation. The appellant claimed that they did not receive the original order issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.09.2010, and only obtained a copy through the Additional Commissioner's office on 30.04.2012. Despite the appellant's argument, the Tribunal noted that even if the appellant did not receive the original order initially, the copy provided in 2012 should be considered as the relevant date for calculating the limitation period. The appeal filed in October 2013 was deemed time-barred, as the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone delays beyond the one-month limit specified under the Act. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) to support this legal principle. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order, and consequently upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the appeal. The judgment serves as a reminder of the strict limitations on the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed period, as established by legal precedents and statutory provisions.
|
