Arising Out Of Oia No.239/Ce/ vs Jalandhar (Hq At Chandigarh)

[Arising out of OIA No.239/CE/Appellant/Jal/2003, dt.27.09.2005, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar HQ at Chandigarh]

M/s Sohana Finisher Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Jalandhar (HQ at Chandigarh) Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: None

For Respondent: Shri V.P. Batra, Authorised Representaive

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

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 of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:22.01.2015

Final Order No.51107/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. None appears on behalf of the Appellants. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant filed an adjournment petition, as he is appearing before the Tribunal at New Delhi.

2. As the appeal is old one and on perusal of the records, we find that the appeal may be decided at this stage.

3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time barred. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant declared the date of communication of the adjudication order to them as 22.04.2005 and filed the appeal on 27.06.2005. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dt.14.09.2005 and 20.09.2005 has intimated that the Order-in-Original was served to the appellant on 25.03.2005. Thus, the appeal was filed after ninety days from the date of communication of order, which is beyond the power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the period of delay. On perusal of the grounds of appeal of the appellant, we find that the appellant has not disputed this fact. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs CCE Jamshedpur  2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. We also notice that the appeal involved the demand of duty of Rs.32,110.00.

4. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

2