9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal was received by the Tribunal on 22-1-2011 along with a Demand Draft towards the appeal fee. In its order dated 3-9-2013, Tribunal directed the Registry to verify and report regarding the petitioner's claim of filing the appeal through Courier and whether the appellant had sent an e-mail enquiring about the filing of appeal, on 19-3-2012. Registry has furnished a report signed by the Registrar on 3-9-2013. As per this report, no appeal was received either by Courier, by post or by hand, earlier to 6-2-2013. The report also states that signature on the Courier receipt does not tally with the signatures of any officer of the Registry. The report also states that the e-mail sent by the petitioner on 19-3-2012 was received by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; along with interest u/s 11AB of the Act; and confirmed levy of confirming penalty equivalent to the duty demand, under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow, vide order dated 22-10-2010. The appellate Authority confirmed disallowance of Cenvat credit availed, the consequent Central Excise duty demand and the interest component. In so far as levy of penalty is concerned, the appellate Authority found that none of the ingredients for levy of an equivalent amount of penalty, under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was established; there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent by the petitioner on 19-3-2012 was received by the Registry along with the copy of the Courier receipt, on 19-3-2012. However no Demand Draft was received and there is no entry of receipt of a Demand Draft in the Demand draft register. 4. Choice of the Courier is of petitioner/appellant and therefore the Courier service provider is an agent of the appellant. In the light of the report of the Registrar dated 30-9-2012, it is apparent that the appeal was not filed/received in the Tribunal prior to 6-2-2013, a date on which the appeal was physically filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the extraordinary delay of 739 days cannot be condoned as there is no valid justification established for such inordinate delay. 5. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
