Kamadhenu Outsourcing vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 30-2013 dated 17/09/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , TIRUPATI ]

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?

Kamadhenu Outsourcing 5-145-a, Bhairava Nagar, ANANTAPUR - 505001 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Guntur P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 06/03/2015

Date of Decision: 06/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20564 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant and on the last two occasions when the stay application was listed also no one was present nor was there any representation seeking adjournment.

2. After hearing the learned AR and going through the records, I find not only the stay application but also appeal can be decided at this stage itself. Accordingly the appeal is taken up for final decision.

3. The Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 161 days and therefore the delay was beyond his powers of condonation. The appellant in their grounds of appeal has stated that the Commissioner(Appeals) could have invoked the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is a central act and which provides for condonation of delay in filing the appeal upto a period of 3 years. However the appellant seems to have conveniently forgotten the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [2008(221) ELT 163 (SC)] wherein Honble Supreme Court has held when the statute prescribed a specific period for filing the appeal and when statute does not provide for condonation of delay beyond a specific period, the delay beyond that period cannot be condoned. In view of the fact that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court against the appellant, no purpose is served in keeping the appeal pending. Accordingly, the stay application as well as the appeal are rejected.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.

3