9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority can entertain an appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act beyond the period of 60 days does not require much debate and has been answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [ 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] . The Supreme Court in the said case interpreted Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is similar to Section 100 of the CGST Act and examined the question whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the period of 60 days prescribed for filing the statutory appeal and also whether the High Court, in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone the delay. It is evident that this Appellate Authority being a creature of the statue is empowered to condone a delay of only a period of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period for filing appeal. As far as the language of Section 100 of the CGST Act is concerned, the crucial words are not exceeding thirty days used in the proviso to sub-section (2). To hold that this Appellate Authority could entertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the solar power-based devises need solar panels. These solar panels come in the following models: a) Flat plate - traditional -System. Flat plate collectors are an extension of the idea to place a collector in an 'oven' like box with glass directly facing the sun. b) Evacuated tube - Evacuated tubs collectors (ETC) are a way to reduce the heat loss, inherent in flat plates. Evacuated/Vacuum tube collectors are used for solar water heating System. 3. The Appellant applied to the Authority for Advance Ruling on the following question: Whether Evacuated/Vacuum Tube Collectors (ETC/VTC) fall under Chapter 84 of HSN which is covered in Sl. No. 234 of Schedule - I under Notification, 01/2017 IGST Rate dated 28.06.2017? 4. The Authority for Advance Ruling vide order No. KAR/ADRG 33/2018 dated 31.12.2018 passed a ruling on the following two points: a) The correct classification of the product ETC , and b) Whether the said product is entitled for the concessional rate as per Sl. No. 234 of Schedule - I of Notification No. 01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate). 5. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no connection with the case in hand. Equating power to electricity and Solar power-based devices to work solely on the principles of conversion of electrical energy to other forms of energy is incorrect and not justified. They submitted that power in common parlance is energy ; ETC/VTC are devices that work on conversion of solar power i.e. solar energy to heat power or heat energy. Solar ETC essentially consisting of solar evacuated tubes is the heart of the solar water heater where the solar power is efficiently transferred to water thus heating it. The solar ETC is a part of the solar water heater and is used specifically for the particular function of heating the water with the solar power. Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human time scales such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat. The different renewable energy devices mentioned in Sl.No 234 do not necessarily operate out of electricity generated from a renewable source. Therefore, the appellant submits that solar water heater is a renewable energy device that runs on solar power and the ETC/VTC converts the solar energy to he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis for the AAR ruling is not correct and hence they have filed this appeal. He also submitted that, except in Bangalore and Chennai ports, all over the country the ETC is subjected to levy of 5% CVD on the imports. 7.1. On being specifically asked by the Members about the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, he admitted that as per the law the appeal before the Appellate Authority has to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the AAR ruling and the Appellate Authority has the power to condone a delay of a further 30 days. However, in their case they had received the AAR ruling dated 31.12.2018 on 04.01.2019. Immediately on receipt of the order, the Managing Director consulted with several agencies and Trade associations and after being certain that they have a valid case, they decided to file the appeal even though it was belated. They requested that the delay in filing the appeal in May 2019 be condoned in the interest of justice. Discussion findings: 8. We have gone through the records of the case and taken into account the submissions made by the appellant in their grounds of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the period for filing an appeal for a further period of 30 days only and not more than such period. In other words, the total limitation period during which an appeal can be preferred before this Authority is 60 days from the date of communication of the advance ruling order, on showing sufficient cause. The proviso does not mean that the appeal can be presented after 60 days. If it is presented beyond the period of 30 days but within the further period of 30 days as stipulated by the proviso, then, the Appellant has to satisfy the Appellate Authority that there was sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within the period of 30 days. 11. The question whether this Appellate Authority can entertain an appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act beyond the period of 60 days does not require much debate and has been answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs CCE reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70. = 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT The Supreme Court in the said case interpreted Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is similar to Section 100 of the CGST Act and examined the question whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others - (2008) 7 SCC 169 = 2008 (4) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT , While considering Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 observed that When any special statute prescribes certain period of limitation as well as provision for extension up to specified time limit, on sufficient cause being shown, then the period of limitation prescribed under the special law shall prevail, and to that extent the provisions of the Limitation Act shall stand excluded Further, in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs Hongo India (P) Ltd (2009) 5 SCC 791 = 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for condonation of delay in filing an appeal or reference to the High Court and observed thus: As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35-B. 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
