9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises (2009 (4) TMI 690 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) dismissed the appeal on the similar ground. - reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.ST/Stay/41199/2013 & ST/41515/2013 - Final Order No. 41531 / 2015 - Dated:- 23-9-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : M. N. Bharathi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per P. K. Choudhary Heard Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri B. Balamurugan learned AC( AR), for the respondent. As the issue lies on a narrow compass, after disposing the stay application we take up the appeal for hearing. 2. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no power to condone The delay beyond the condonable period of limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 which is pari materia to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is submitted that the Tribunal consistently held that on the plea of wrong mentioning of period of filling appeal of three months in preamble of the adjudication order, delay cannot be condoned by overriding the statutory limit of filling the appeal. He relies upon the following decisions :- (1) Raghav Industries Vs CC Amritsar 2008 (231) ELT 298 (Tri.-Chennai) (2) Sagar Enterprises Vs CC Tuticorin 2009 (247) ELT 410 (Tri.-Chennai) We have carefully examined submissions of both sides, and the issue in the present appeal lies in the narrow compass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days-time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
