9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of preferring appeal - appeal dismissed. - ST/23588/2014-SM - Final Order No. 23229 / 2017 - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. A. Ravindran, Consultant For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal has been remanded by the Hon ble High Court vide its order dated 3.8.2017 vide which the Hon ble High Court has directed this Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of Section 85(3A) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Today, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AR. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.7.2014 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to the time limit provided in the order. The condonation of delay application was also filed along with appeal. Thereafter by the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal at the threshold stage itself citing the reason that the delay was in excess of 30 days which is beyond the condonable limit. The learned Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has considered the grounds seeking condonation of delay and has come to the conclusion that the reasons for seeking the condonation of delay of 48 days is not justified and therefore, the learned Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned consultant for the appellant subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in preamble of the adjudication order cannot override the statutory time limit of filing the appeal. In support of this submission, he relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Raghav Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise: 2008 (231) ELT 298 (Tri.-Del.) wherein in para 2, the Tribunal has observed as under: 2. The Commissioner has observed that the appellant filed the appeal beyond 31 days from the statutory time limit of sixty days provided for filing of appeal under Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended in the grounds of appeal that delay was caused due to wrong mentioning of period of filing appeal of three months in the preamble of the adjudication order. We find that the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under this Chapter : Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise (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 learned Commissioner (A) while dismissing the appeal of the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court 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 pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
