9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The prescribed period for filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is two months, however, delay of one month is condonable by the Commissioner subject to a sufficient cause being shown to him by the appellant. As is apparent from the impugned order, there is no such sufficient cause shown. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50117-50119 of 2020 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 51240-51242/2021 - Dated:- 6-4-2021 - MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Arya Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P. Juneja, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Present order disposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of of service tax paid on services which got specifically exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Export Service Rules, 2005. The said refund claim was sanctioned to them and the amount was refunded by cheque. However, an appeal was preferred against the said refund on the ground that the amount has been erroneously refunded without appreciating as to whether the claimant is unjustly enriched. Accordingly, show cause notices, as mentioned above, were served upon the appellants proposing the recovery of the amount so refunded to them. The said proposal was confirmed vide the order-in-original, as mentioned above. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide the impugned order-in-appeal. 3. I have heard Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r subject to a sufficient cause being shown to him by the appellant. As is apparent from the impugned order, there is no such sufficient cause shown. 5. Resultantly, I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge where the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the statutory mandate of Section 35 of Central Excise Act. I draw my support from Singh Enterprises versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that :- 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
