9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit shall be made, unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard. 2. Under Section 103(1) of the Act, this Advance ruling pronounced by the Appellate Authority under Chapter XVII of the Act shall be binding only (a) on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 97 for advance ruling; (b) on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. 3. Under Section 103 (2) of the Act; this advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the said advance ruling have changed, 4. Under Section 104(1) of the Act, where the Appellate Authority finds that advance ruling pronounced by it under sub-section (1) of Section 101 has been obtained by the appellant by fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, it may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab-initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the appellant as if such advance ruling has never been made. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RA/2020 dated 24.03.2021, passed the following ruling for the question raised by the Appellant, "The tamarind inner pulp without shell and seeds is not an 'Agricultural produce' as defined under explanation 2(d) of the Notification No. 12/ 2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and therefore the service of cold storage of such tamarind are not exempted under Sl. No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-ST(Rate) dated 28.062017." 2.4. The AAR, in their discussions, stated that the product, tamarind is processed by drying the same under the sun, by beating with wooden sticks to remove the pod, hammered to deseed and destring for extraction of endocarp/pulp and these processes are done as 'Cottage Industry'. Hence the product would not fall under the term 'Agricultural Produce' as defined under explanation 2(d) of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. For the same reason, the exemption at Sl. No. 54 of the said Notification was not extended. 2.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an appeal on 07.11.2023 against the order of AAR. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellant mainly contended that tamarind is a fruit, the outer cover of the tamarind pods are remove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the appellant has not paid the additional fee of Rs. 10,000/- under sub rule (1) of Rule 106 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Members stated that only on payment of the additional fee of Rs. 10,000/- under sub-rule (1) of Rule 106 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the petition for condonation of delay will be taken up. The AR stated that they would pay the same at the earliest and submit the relevant document. 4.3. Accordingly, the Appellant submitted a DRC-03 challan dated 18.01.2024, for having paid the fees under CGST of Rs. 10,000/- vide debit entry No. DC3301240136185 dated 18.01.2024, as stipulated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 106 of the CGST Rules, 2017. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 5.1. We have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant in their application. Before getting into the discussion of the issue in the appeal, we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal and non-payment of fee towards filing of appeal. Hence the same will be examined first before moving forward to decide the issue raised in the Appeal. 5.2. We find that the Appellant, after the personal hearing, has paid the fees of Rs. 10,000/- vide debit entry no. DC 33012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded, sufficient cause is shown by the Appellant. In the present case, there is a delay of 920 days which is way beyond the power of the Appellate authority to condone, let alone examining as to whether sufficient cause was shown by the Appellant. 5.6. The Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 3 of 2020, wherein the relevant portion states as follows: "5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. ----------- II ----------- III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event of actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply." We find that, even if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falls beyond the powers conferred under proviso to Section 100(2) of the COST Act, 2017. 5.10. In this regard, we refer to the decision dated 12.12.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 5949 of 2007 [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme 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 up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within the three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
