9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue as evident from paragraph 1 of the said ‘Order'. - Delay cannot be condoned - Decided against the assessee. - G. A. No. 3444 of 2015, CEXA No. 8 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2015 - Soumitra Pal And Mir Dara Sheko, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafder, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. S B Saraf, Adv Mrs. Santa Mitra, Adv ORDER The Court : This application under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been filed by the M/s. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation praying for stay of the order dated 23rd September, 2015 passed by the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata on Stay Petition Nos.SP 71223,71224/13 arising ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.425 of 2015 (Satish Kumar Sharma v. Union of India Ors.) , a copy of which has been furnished to Mr.Tarafder, submits evidently under the format an appeal must be filed within three months meaning thereby it should be filed within 60 days; if not, the condonable limit is 30 days. As admittedly, appeal was presented even after 90 days, this appeal may not be admitted. Heard learned advocates for the parties. In Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur : 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC) it has been held as under : ..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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, as there is patent illegality as contended by the appellant, and calls for intervention in the writ jurisdiction. In our view, if we accept the submission of the appellant that the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner has to be heard on merits though dismissed on the ground of limitation, in an appeal under section 35, it would render the said section as otiose and would open a flood gate of litigations. The very object of section 35 would be defeated. It would encourage the litigants to approach the High Court under the writ jurisdiction at any point of time in breach of the provisions contained in section 35. It has to be borne in mind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
