9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2013. There is a misrepresentation by the appellants that Orders-in-Original were actually received on 28/06/2013 in place of 26/06/2013 in contra to the factual position. Appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (appeal) on the ground of limitation as appeals should have been filed on 25/08/2013 whereas those were filed late, i.e., on 27/08/2013. There has been misrepresentation on the fact of date of receipt of Orders-in-Original. Commissioner (appeal) also held that no reason for late filing of the appeals was brought on record by the appellants. No specific request for condonation of delay was made. Even issue of condonation of delay was not looked into by the Commissioner (appeal) as in the main portion of the appeals, only requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). (2) Every appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (3) (3A) An appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority, made on and after the Finance Bill, 2012 receives the assent of the President, relating to service tax, interest or penalty under this Chapter: Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.] 3. Appellants have contended that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver to Companys representative who have not been nominated through the Resolution of a Company. As it came out that Shri Gaurav Tiwari, employee of the Company has been interacting with the Central Excise Department by receiving and handing over of letters on behalf of the company Orders-in-Original were received by him after coming to the Range Officer on 26/06/2013. There is a misrepresentation by the appellants that Orders-in-Original were actually received on 28/06/2013 in place of 26/06/2013 in contra to the factual position. Commissioner (appeals) has given the portion in para 4 of his order which is reproduced for ready reference: The appeal against the Order-in-Original in question should have been filed by 25/08/2013 whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly request relating grant of refund to the appellants was made. 7. In view of the above, I find force in the Commissioner (appeal) order justifying dismissal of their appeals which have been filed beyond limitation and thus not maintainable. I also do not find any valid reason for intervention as Orders-in-Original were duly handed over to the Companys representative who has been acting as interface between department and the company. Otherwise also, no resolution was warranted for nominating person to receive letter as same person has been dealing with the department. This contention is raised only to cover up their misrepresentation. Specific act of misrepresentation does not justify that orders received by the representative should n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
