9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng disposed of by this common order. The details of the appeals are as under: Appeal No. Refund claim amount Period involved ST/20915/2016-SM Rs.1,40,411/- 4/2013 to 6/2013 ST/20916/2016-SM Rs.1,47,638/- 7/2013 to 9/2013 ST/20917/2016-SM Rs.1,14,543/- 10/2012 to 12/2012 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants who is a 100% EOU is engaged in providing technology base web development solutions to its customers located outside India and for providing output service, appellant availed number of input services and it was not possible for him to utilize these CENVAT credit and therefore they filed refund claims seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on input services used for providing the output ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further provides that the Commissioner has the power to condone the delay upto one month if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of two months. She further submitted that admittedly in this case the Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on 20.10.2015 itself but the appeals against these Order-in-Original were filed by the appellant only on 9.3.2016 i.e., almost after 140 days from the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original. She further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the maximum period which the Commissioner can condone is 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which means that the appeal must be filed withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under this Chapter : Provided that the Commissioner (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. 7.1 Further, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) it has held that, the proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 35 ibid 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
