9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original dated 8th January, 2018 was made by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Division-II, under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (formerly, Central Excise Act, 1944), the Petitioner instituted appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, (Appeals-III). However, this appeal was instituted beyond period of 90 days, i.e., beyond the period of maximum extendable period by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority by order dated 25th May 2017 dismissed the same as time barred. This dismissal was upheld by the Tribunal by its order dated 8th January, 2018. 4] Insofar as the orders dated 25th May 2017 and 8th January, 2018 are concerned, there is absol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the limitation provided under Section 35 of the Act cannot be condoned in filing the appeal beyond the period of 30 days as provided by the proviso nor the appeal can be filed beyond the period of 90 days. (2) The second question is answered in negative to the extent that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (3) On the third question, the answer is in affirmative, but with the clarification that (A) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred for challenging the order passed by the original adjudicating authority in following circumstances that (A.1) The authority has passed the order without jurisdiction and by assu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Full Bench has in fact followed the ruling of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 9] Mr. Prabhakar submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs failed to consider the submissions that the Petitioner has taken the Cenvat Credit against the Bill of Entry No. 6495990 dated 9th April, 2012. However, due to clerical mistake, number and date of this Bill of Entry was not correctly reflected. He submits that Assistant Commissioner was duty bound to furnish the correct facts from record and hold that there was no error in the Petitioner availing credit. Mr. Prabhakar submits that in any case there was no suppression of facts or intention to evade duty. He submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of limited jurisdiction of judicial review. 12] Besides, we find that the impugned order was made on 10th March 2016. Even the final order by the Tribunal was made on 8th January, 2018. This petition was however, instituted only on 29th September 2018. There is absolutely no explanation for in ordinate delay in the institution of the petition. The averment in the petition is that there is no delay or laches in instituting this petition. Therefore, the petitioner, far from acknowledging the delay and explaining the same, does not even admit that there is any delay or laches. This is an additional ground for dismissing this petition. 13] Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition. 14] In the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
