9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal. 2. Heard Shri Amrish Tripathi, Proprietor who submitted that he has a very strong case on merits and Commissioner (Appeals) has decided in his favour for the FY 2012-13 to 2015-16. 3. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Revenue who has reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) 4. From the records and perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the appeal of the Appellant has been dismissed by observing as follows : - "4. Discussion and Findings: It is observed that the Appellant have filed the appeal after complying with the requirement of pre-deposit laid down in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the Service Tax matters vide Section 83 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the aforesaid period of two month. 4.3 I find that in the instant case, the Appellant has requested for condonation of delay. Since, the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay of one month only and the delay in the instant case is much beyond this time limit, I find that the appeal filed by the Appellant beyond the prescribed time limit, is time barred and as such, is liable for dismissal. 4.4 Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC), inter alia, held, as under: Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation Condonation of delay - Appeal filed after 21 months from date of service of order dismissed by Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding for limitation rather otiose - Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 10] 5. In view of the above, I hold that the present appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable and as such, the same is rejected." 5. In the present case the Order-In-Original No 26-ST/ADj/ACK-I/2020 dated 07.07.2020 was undisputedly received by the Appellant on 13.07.2020. They filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) on 15.02.2023, i.e. after more than 30 months. Even if the benefit of the order dated 10.01.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motto Writ Petition (C) No 3 of 2020 is extended to the Appellant than also the appeal was to be filed by the Appellant within two months from 28.02.2022. Commissioner (Appeal) could have condoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
