Allied Transport vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

Application No. ST/COD/92986, 92987/15 in Appeal No. ST/85599, 85600/15

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-129 to 130-14-15 dated 16.12.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

Allied Transport Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Service Tax, Mumbai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Mangesh Pawar, Accountant for appellant Shri S.R. Nair, EO (AR) for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 06.07.2015 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

2. When the matter was called, representative of the appellant sought adjournment on the ground that their advocate is busy before the High Court. We find from the records that this application for condonation of delay was listed 25.05.2015. On that day also there was an adjournment request which was considered sympathetically and the matter was adjourned for today. It is seen from the submission that in the last date of hearing also the same person was present before the Bench. Accordingly, we dismiss the request for adjournment.

3. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we find that appellant seeks condonation of delay of 563 days in filing appeal before the first appellate authority. In our considered view this application cannot be made before the Bench. Be that as it may the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for belated filing of appeal before him, as it is settled law that he cannot condone beyond the period which could be done by him as per statute. We do not find anything wrong with the order passed by the first appellate authority as the law is clearly settled by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE  2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.). Accordingly, we dismiss the applications for condonation of delay as also the appeals.

(Dictated in Court)

(Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

nsk

??

??

??

??

1 3