Automotive Design & Engineering ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 174-2013 dated 05/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service T
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is rejected where the appellant, despite a defect memo requiring proof of the date of receipt of the impugned order, fails to cure the defect within the time allowed and gives no reason for the delay in filing or any condonation (COD) application; an appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation period, unaccompanied by a cause of delay explanation or condonation application, cannot be entertained and is liable to rejection.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 174-2013 dated 05/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-II( Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
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?
Automotive Design & Engineering Solutions Pvt Ltd Office (sez Unit), Level-1 Module -5, Plot No..h.-08 Phoenix Infocity, Hitech City-2, GACHIBOWLI, - 81 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-ii L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 27/03/2015
Date of Decision: 27/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20882 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
In the appeal, the order under challenge is dated 25/10/2013 but the appeal has been received on 06/03/2014. In the Form ST-5, date of communication has been indicated as 05/12/2013. The defect memo was issued requiring the appellant to produce evidence of receipt of the OIA and no reply has been received even though it is more than a year since the defect memo was issued. Since the appellant has failed to cure the defect and appeal is apparently filed beyond the period prescribed, the appeal is rejected for not curing the defect and not giving the reasons for delay and not filing the COD application. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free