9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) but he dismissed the appeals without considering the same. On the other hand, learned AR for Revenue stated that the Adjudicating Authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period. It is also pointed out that in the memorandum of appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) was mentioned as Additional Commissioner instead of Commissioner (Appeals). In this response, learned Counsel for the appellants stated that in the memorandum of appeal, the word Additional Commissioner is a typographical error. 3. We find that in the memorandum of appeal, the word additional commissioner appears at so many places and learned Counsel clarified that it was a typographical error and prayed that the word 'additional commissioner' may be presumed as 'Commissioner (Appeals)'. We accept the same and proceed to take up the case. Since all the appeals are covered by same OIA, we take up all these appeals together for disposal. 4. We heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri A.P. Suresh and learned Authorized Representative for the department, Shri B. Sangameshar Rao and perused the records. 5. The Orders-in-Originals have been passed on 13.03.2023 & 14.03.2023. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)] has, inter alia, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days. In this regard, para 8 of the order is reproduced below:- "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 accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') 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 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred and no Court of law can entertain the matter. However, the petitioner availed alternative remedy unsuccessfully, so we are not considering this aspect in great detail." 11. In the case of Commissioner of Customs-II Vs Poonam Courier Pvt Ltd [2021 (376) ELT 60 (Bom.)], the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held as follows:- "...... CESTAT as a statutory tribunal is a creature of the statute and exercises powers and functions conferred by the statute. It is constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act and exercises jurisdiction under Section 129A in the manner provided in Section 129C. It can only pass such orders as is provided in Section 129B. It does not possess plenary jurisdiction like a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The self imposed restrictions which a High Court exercises while refraining from invoking its writ jurisdiction in the face of adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is not available to a statutory Tribunal like the CESTAT whose powers and functions are circumscribed by the statute..." 12. There is catena of judgments including jurisdictional High Court to the effect that Tribunal is a creature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a statute. d) 2016 (336) E.L.T. 55 (A.P.) - B. HIMA BINDU Versus COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-II - an appellate Tribunal, being a creature of the Statute, should be guided by the conditions stipulated in the statutory provision while exercising powers expressly conferred or those incidental thereto [M/s. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee, Poranki, Vijayawada - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 135 (AP)]. e) 2014 (310) E.L.T. 244 (A.P.) - MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus C.C.E., C. & S.T., VISAKHAPATNAM-I - the Tribunal does not have any inherent power like Civil Court to pass appropriate order for the ends of justice. The Tribunal is a creature of a Statute with specific powers mentioned in the Statute itself. f) 2012 (276) E.L.T. 465 (A.P.) - SQL STAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., HYDERABAD - An Appellate Tribunal, being a creature of the statute, cannot ignore the statutory guidance while exercising general powers or expressly conferred incidental powers g) 2011 (22) S.T.R. 135 (A.P.) - COMMR. OF C. EX., GUNTUR Versus SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE - An appellate Tribunal, being a creature of the statute, cannot ignore the statutory guidance whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
