9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that once there is a delay of more than ninety days in filing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power or authority to permit the appeal to be presented beyond such period. In the present case, the delay sought to be condoned is within the permissible thirty-day limit and not after the expiry of thirty days. The appellant has placed on record its explanation, which is not found to be wrong and it is definitely not a case involving any deliberate or negligent act on behalf of the assessee, in causing delay - It is also the settled position that the power conferred upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing appeal is to alleviate genuine sufferings of taxpayers. He has the power and corresponding dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Burns Research Society for treatment, but however, on 11.11.2016, she passed away due to Septicemic Shock due to burns . He also submitted that even the Managing Director, the husband of the deceased, had sustained burn injuries, was also undergoing treatments and the above mishap was the cause for delayed filing of the first appeal before the lower appellate authority, with a delay of about 18 days. 3.3 On merits, Ld. Advocate submits that the appellant has an arguable case and that the demand was raised by the adjudicating authority without considering the documentary evidences available on record. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities, but however, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermit the appeal to be presented beyond such period. The controversy sought to be raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra, inasmuch as the same stands decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70 = 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), wherein the Court in the context of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is in pari materia with Section 128 of the Act, has held thus : 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order, I find that the delay sought to be condoned is within the permissible thirty-day limit and not after the expiry of thirty days. The appellant has placed on record its explanation, which is not found to be wrong and it is definitely not a case involving any deliberate or negligent act on behalf of the assessee, in causing delay. 8.1 In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for interference, since the reason given by the Ld. First Appellate Authority which is challenged here, does not appear to be sound and not in tune with the settled principles as to liberal approach on delay condonation, by various courts including the Hon ble Apex Court, like in the case of Collector of La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
