9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the said case, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the statute prescribes a particular period of limitation the same cannot be condoned even by the Supreme Court as that would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. In view of the said decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 25/ADC/Central Excise/2010 dated 02/11/2010 wherein the original authority confirmed a demand of ₹ 6,61,128/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was filed on 19/04/2011 which was beyond the permissible period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order, has dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. We find that the issue is already covered by the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC). In the said case, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the statute prescribes a particular period of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
