9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowledgement before this Court in the earlier proceedings and that the acknowledgement was infructuous and beyond the purview of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ proceedings. Moreover, it may be noted that even in the rejoinder, which was filed by the appellant in the earlier proceedings, all that was stated was that Mr. Vikas Agrawal was living separately and due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hud,CJ And Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. For the Appellant : Niraj Tiwari For the Respondent : Vinod Kant Srivastava ORDER This appeal arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 17 January 2012. The Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur passed an order dated 3 September 2001confirming a duty demand of Rs.2.18 lacs under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y limitation. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22 March 2011. According to the appellant, the order of adjudication dated 3 September 2001 was actually communicated only on 28 January 2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that since the actual date of acknowledgement of the order was not available, he summoned the record from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that even in the rejoinder, which was filed by the appellant in the earlier proceedings, all that was stated was that Mr. Vikas Agrawal was living separately and due to loss in the business and disputes in the family, there was no communication between them. If, according to the appellant, Vikas Agrawal was not an authorised representative within the meaning of Section 35Q of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period stipulated in the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal, which was filed well beyond 9 years from the date of the receipt of the order of the Adjudicating Officer was clearly barred by limitation. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
