Balrla Ravi Kimar vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 32/2013 (V-II) ST dated 30/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the condonable period of one month, as laid down in Singh Enterprises (2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC)); an appeal filed after that period, where the appellant does not dispute the delay, is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 32/2013 (V-II) ST dated 30/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), VISAKHAPATNAM-II ]
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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Balrla Ravi Kimar D. No. 36-28-8, Flat No. S-3, Salmuru Towers Salumuru Street, Innespeta, Rajahmundry-533101, EAST GODAVARI DIST. AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None G.R.KUMAR & CO.
9, MERRY LIFE APARTMENTS, DOCTORS'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017 For the Appellant
Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR)
For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 26/03/2015
Date of Decision: 26/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20851 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
As the appellant have deposited the entire amount of service tax along with interest, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of penalties.
2. We further find that Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation by observing that the same stands filed even after the condonable period of one month and he has no powers to condone the delay beyond that. We find that the issue is no longer res integra and the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises: 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC) has clarified the law that Commissioner (A) cannot condone the delay beyond the powers conferred upon him in terms of the law. The appellants are not disputing the fact that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. As such we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 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