Gowtham Residential Junior Collage vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 41/2013 dated 18/06/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guntur ( Appeals)]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. 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

Gowtham Residential Junior Collage Gudavalli, Krishna Dist. Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guntur P.B. No. 331, C.R. Building, Kannavarithota, Guntur  522 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. S. Teli, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 30/03/2015 Date of Decision: 30/03/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20925 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has sent a letter stating that matter may be decided on the basis of the grounds of the stay application and appeal.

2. On going through the impugned order-in-appeal, we found that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that appellant had filed the appeal on 10.05.2013 along with a prayer for condonation of delay of 611 days. He has rejected the appeal on the ground that he has no power under the law to condone the delay beyond 30 days. In the grounds of appeal before us also there is no denial of the fact that appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed with a delay of 611 days. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in [2008 (221) E.L.T 163 (S.C)] has held that when appeal is filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under statute, no statutory authority can condone the delay and consider the appeal. Under these circumstances, the impugned order has to be held in accordance with law and proper and requires no interference. As a result the stay application as also the appeal is rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss