9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btained the duplicate copy of the order only on 25.06.2013 and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within time when computed from 25.06.2013 cannot be accepted. In the case of Singh Enterprises [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Hon ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay of more than 30 days which is the condonable period prescribed by the statute. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of being time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/42627/2014 - Final Order No. 42311 / 2017 - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of time vide letter dt. 16.05.2011 mentioning their new address. Thereafter, Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2011 was passed exparte without their knowledge. The appellant filed reply to the deficiency memo vide letter dt. 27.3.2012 and then, only they came to know that the Order-in-Original has been passed rejecting the refund claim. They applied for copy of the Order-in-Original and preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Counsel strongly argued that as the Order-in-Original was not served/delivered to the appellant, the time for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) would run only from the date of receiving duplicate copy i.e. 25.6.2013. It is also contended by him that Commissioner (Appeals) has not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have received the order as well as intimations sent to their old address by way of redirection or such other. It is pointed out by the A.R that there is inordinate delay of more than one year and 11 months in filing the appeal. Within this period, the appellant ought to have enquired and followed the refund application filed by them, especially, when they have filed application for adjournment of personal hearing. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Singh Enterprises 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.), and argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of time-bar. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 The main argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instead it is seen that they have sought to file a reply to deficiency memo after much delay on 27.03.2012, without even making any enquiry as to the status of their refund claim. Be that as it may, it is seen from the endorsement made upon the letter dated 16.05.2011 that the letter was delivered to the department by hand. From the impugned order, it is seen that the last date fixed for hearing was 18.05.2011. It can be safely concluded that as per their letter for adjournment the matter was adjourned to 18.05.2011. The next hearing date would have been directly informed to the appellants since the letter was given by hand. The appellants having slept over their chance is now attempting to get over the hurdle of time bar contending that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
