9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JAMSHEDPUR [ 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT ] has, inter alia, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and is bound to act within the four walls of the statute. Tribunal has no discretionary power to condone the delay beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. Thus, admittedly the appellants were served the OIOs dt.13.03.2023 14.03.2023 on 20.03.2023 and they have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 03.10.2023. In the normal course, these appeals should have been filed by 19.05.2023, which is 60 days from the date of communication of OIOs and Commissioner (Appeals) has discretion to condone the delay up to 30 days only beyond this period. In the present case, the appellants have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) after more than 6 months from the date of communication of OIOs. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeals on time bar itself without going into merit. There are no scope or reason to interfere with the Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed. - HON BLE MR. A. K. JYOTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till be registered and decided on its own merits. The appellate authority can reject the appeal either on the ground of the Commissioner (Appeals) not having the power to condone the delay beyond a particular period or for the appellants having not provided satisfactory ground for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period 6. Commissioner (Appeals), after hearing both sides, in the impugned order has observed that Appellate Authority has no power to allow the appeal presented beyond the period of thirty days after normal period of limitation of sixty days, for condoning such delay was not warranted and therefore, rejected the appeals as time barred. 7. In this regard Section 128 of the Customs Act is relevant and is reproduced below:- Section 128. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order. Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 10. In the case of M/s Resolute Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India [2015 (319) ELT 51 (AP)], Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held as follows:- 5. We think that the petitioner keeping eyes open allowed the period for preferring the appeal as well as that of for condonation of delay allowed to expire and thereafter he approached. In other words, the petitioner had fitter away its own remedy. Therefore alleged situation of remediless is its own creation. According to us, the provision of Section 35(1) of the Act is absolutely rigid and cannot be extended either directly or indirectly by the Court of law. We set out the provision of Section 35(1) of the Act hereunder: 35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals). - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order : Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction and powers only from the statute creating it and not outside the same. b) 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) - UNION OF INDIA Versus PARAS LAMINATES (P) LTD. - There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a court within the limits of its jurisdiction. It has all the powers conferred expressly by the statute. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is, of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hable with the facts of the present case. However, we find, in view of settled position of law, as cited supra, it is settled law that CESTAT, being a creature of statute, cannot go beyond the provisions of the statute under which it has been created nor it can direct any other authority working under the statute to act beyond the provisions of the statute. 14. In view of the relied upon case laws, we find that Tribunal is a creature of statute and is bound to act within the four walls of the statute. Tribunal has no discretionary power to condone the delay beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. 15. Therefore, we find that admittedly the appellants were served the OIOs dt.13.03.2023 14.03.2023 on 20.03.2023 and they have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 03.10.2023. In the normal course, these appeals should have been filed by 19.05.2023, which is 60 days from the date of communication of OIOs and Commissioner (Appeals) has discretion to condone the delay up to 30 days only beyond this period. In the present case, the appellants have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) after more than 6 months from the date of communication of OIOs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
