Acumen Capital Market India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 458-2014-ST dated 20/06/2014 passed by Commisioner Of Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), COCHIN ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Acumen Capital Market India Ltd S.t.reddiar &sons Building, Veekshanam Road Cochin COCHIN - 682035 KERALA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Cochin-cce C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, - 682018 KERALA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri P.V. Hariharan, CA For the Appellant

Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/02/2015

Date of Decision: 19/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No.20393 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order was passed by Commissioner(Appeals) on 20/06/2014 and was received by the appellant on 27/06/2014. As such, the limitation period of 3 months for filing the present appeal expired on or around 27/09/2014. However the appeal stands filed on 08/12/2014 with a delay of 69 days.

2. Arguing on the COD application, learned consultant Shri P.V. Hariharan appearing for the appellant submits that the delay has occurred on account of the Managing Director being away on business tour and as such not in a position to discuss the matter with other Directors regarding filing the appeal.

3. On going through the COD application, we find that apart from submitting that the Managing Director was on business tour, no details as regards the period for which he was away from the business stand given in the said appeal. Learned consultant submits that the Managing Director was away from September 2014 to November 2014. Though there is no documentary evidence to that effect, but we are of the view that even if the said statement of the learned consultant is taken to be the correct statement, the limitation expired in September 2014 itself. There is no explanation coming forth from the appellant as to the steps taken by them during the period from 27/06/2014 to 27/09/2014, for the purpose of filing the appeal. Otherwise also, we find that the fact of Managing Director being away on a business tour cannot be held to be a reasonable ground for condoning the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal. With the Managing Director being away from the scene of business, the business of the assessee had admittedly not come to a standstill. If the business has not been stopped, we really fail to understand as to how his being away from the scene can result in non-preparation of the appeal well within the period of limitation. We also find that there is nothing on record to show that the Managing Director was the person concerned for the purpose of filing the appeal and in his absence, there was no other responsible employee of the company, who could have taken steps for filing the appeal.

4. In view of the above, we find no justifiable reason to condone the delay of 69 days. Accordingly COD application is rejected. Consequently the appeal gets dismissed on the point of limitation.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja..

3