9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Tribunal." 3] After the Order-in-Original dated 10th March 2016 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 21st November 2017. 4] Insofar as the orders dated 25th May 2017 and 21st November 2017 ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gative by observing that 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 juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch matters, 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 demand in the present case was based upon the statement of the employees and the job workers, which hardly constitutes any positive evidence on basis of which the demand could not have been confirmed. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs failed to take into account the Notification No.214/ 86 CE dated 25th March, 1986 which provides the exemption to the job work in respect of goods manufactured by them on job work subject to the condition that the principal manufacturer would use the said processed material in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Besides, we find that the impugned order was made on 10th March 2016. Even the final order by the Tribunal was made on 21st November 2017. This petition was however, instituted only on 29th September 2018. There is absolutely no explanation for inordinate 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 circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
