9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to file three separate appeals against each impugned order and therefore, these appeals have been filed on 30.06.2017. The appeal filed on 30.04.2014 was disposed of by this Tribunal as infructuous as not maintainable vide Final Order No. 61221/2017 dated 30.06.2017. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeals is not intentional and due to reasons that a consolidated appeal was filed but as per the CESTAT Procedure Rules, they were required to file three appeals separately against each impugned order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent took the preliminary objection that the applicant who has signed the COD application is not authorised to file the said applications in the light of the provisions of Section 35B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttee of Commissioners, A.K. Jain, Commissioner (Service Tax) 17-B, IAEA House, IP Estate, New Delhi and Devendra Mishra, Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi-V (Rohtak) direct the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Division III, Gurgaon to file an Appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT in form ST-7; (i) For setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No. -238-SVG-GGN-2014 dated 30.04.2014. (ii) For restoring the Order-in-Original Nos. 174-176/REFUND/ST/2013 dated 24.10.2013. (iii) For any other order that the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate." Section 86 (2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 is pari-materia to Section 35B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the same is extracted as under:- "SECTION 35B. Appeals to the Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant/ applicant/ respondent or the Consultant or Advocate retained by them shall certify as true the documents produced before the Tribunal. As per the said Rule, the person who has signed the appeal is required to sign the applications. In the instant case, the applications for condonation of delay are required to be signed by the person who is authorised to file the appeals before this Tribunal. I find that the applications for condonation of delay have not been signed by an authorised officer. The said issue has been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of in the case of CC (Imports), Chennai Vs. Archen Granites Pvt. Limited - 2011 (264) ELT 290 (Tri. Chennai), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "4. Apart from the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
