9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is to be noted that the original order was sent by registered post on 04.04.2007. A copy of the order was requested for by the appellant way back in the year '2008' and the same was served to them, on more than one occasion, as conceded by them in Annexure A/4 and A/5. Despite this, the appeal was admittedly preferred only in the year '2012' with a petition for condoning the delay as shown in Annexure A/6, which we have already extracted above. The acceptability of the explanation was considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), who held it against the appellant, which came to be affirmed by the Tribunal as well. We are aware of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court as per decision in N Balakrishnan Vs M Krishnamurthy [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case preferred in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant and the standing counsel representing the department. 3. The factual matrix reveals that the appellant who is a Public Sector Company belonging to the Central Government, had availed Cenvat Credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period in question and had filed returns accordingly before the competent authority. However, taking note of the fact that the credit availed by the appellant was not correct or sustainable, either on facts or in law, a show-cause notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner on 19.04.2006. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of the original order. It is stated that the order dated 30.03.2007 was sent by registered post on 04.04.2007, as taken out by the Tribunal in opening paragraph of the order under challenge. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant themselves have admitted in Annexure A/4, as to the receipt of a copy of the order on 18.01.2012, as discernible from the opening paragraphs of Annexure A/4 which read as follows: Kindly refer above letter No. which was received by the undersigned on 18.01.2012 though this order was previously received by this office on our request made vide letter No.A Service Tax/Appeal/32/ST/RPR/3 dated 01.11.2008. The above case was attended by Shri S.C.Goldar, Sr.AO a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submits that the delay has been properly explained and the same was sought to be condoned by Annexure A/6 dated 10.12.2012. The so called reason for condoning the delay of '4 years and 11 months' is as given below: Ref:Order No.32/ST/RPR/ADC/ dated 30/03/2007 received on dated 18.01.2012 L.No.V(CH.72) 15-95/ADC/RPR/2006/Adj 7032 Dated 30.03.2007 With reference to the aforesaid order, this is to bring to your kind attention that BSNL, A Govt of India Enterprise, haven't received the aforesaid Order in Original until today. It came first into our Notice on the request intimated vide our Letter A Service Tax/Appeal/32/ST/RPR/3 dt 01.11.2008 to you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Apex Court in Singh Enterprises Vs Commissioner of C.Ex Jamshedpur reported in (2008) 150 ECR 1 (SC). Accordingly, the correctness of the verdict passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) in dismissing the appeal was upheld by passing Annexure A/1 order, which is sought to be interdicted by this Court. 13. With regard to service of the order, first of all, it is to be noted that the original order was sent by registered post on 04.04.2007. A copy of the order was requested for by the appellant way back in the year '2008' and the same was served to them, on more than one occasion, as conceded by them in Annexure A/4 and A/5. Despite this, the appeal was admittedly preferred only in the year '2012' wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal had to be preferred within three months. It is also stated that the statute stipulates the maximum time limit which could be condoned by the authority concerned. The said power cannot be extended any further, which otherwise would amount to re-writing the statute. It is stated that this question was considered by this Court by a common judgment dated 17.05.2019 in bunch of appeals having the lead case Writ Appeal No.262 of 2019 (authored by one of us- PR Ramachandra Menon, CJ). 16. We are aware of the said judgment. The legal position was explained with reference to the law declared by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited Others repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
