Jyoti Enterprise vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax, ...
- Case No.Service Tax Appeal No.ST/71339/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the three-month condonation period prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, on top of the statutory three-month limit; an appeal filed outside that outer limit must be dismissed as time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 93/BOL/2013 dated-17/09/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-III), Kolkata)
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE 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 ?
Jyoti Enterprise
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Sri S. Chakraborty, Advocate FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 06/04/2015
ORDER NO. FO/A/75203/2015 Per DR.D.M. MISRA This stay application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.28.01 Lakhs and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78 and penalties under other provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue brought to our notice that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him which was beyond the condonation limit of Three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to condone the delay beyond three months in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C). We agree with the submissions of the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. S.P. disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Sd/- 09/04/15 Sd/- 09/04/15 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/71339/2013
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