Country Club India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 40-2014-15H-IIST dated 28/07/2014 passed by Commissioner Of Customs,Central Exci
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a statute prescribes both a limitation period for filing an appeal and a maximum period within which delay may be condoned, the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond that maximum period, however the delay arose. Where the order has been served on the assessee and that service is evidenced and accepted, an explanation of internal misplacement of the order within the assessee's office does not enlarge the statutory period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 40-2014-15H-IIST dated 28/07/2014 passed by Commissioner Of Customs,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?
Country Club India Ltd 6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad HYDERABAD - 500016 ANDHRA PRDESH 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:
Shri M. Narayana Chary, Consultant For the Appellant
Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. 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. 20883 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the appeal.
2. The learned consultant fairly agrees that even before the Commissioner(Appeals), the appeal was filed on 30/06/2014 and they have received the OIO on 14/05/2013. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that he has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under statute. He submits that in the appellants office, the order was miss-placed on both the occasions and hence the delay. Whatever be the reason, once an order has been served on the assessee and there is an evidence of that and it is accepted, the delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned if the statute prescribed a specific limit for filing the appeal and a specific period for condonation. In this case, the Commissioner could not have condoned the delay in filing the appeal beyond one month and therefore he has rightly rejected the appeal. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises has held that when the statute prescribes a period for condonation, no authority can condone the delay beyond the prescribed period. Under the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be considered at all since the impugned order is in accordance with law. Therefore the COD application and the appeal are rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja 3
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