M/S. Associated Ceramics Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax
- CitationAppeal No.14/2005
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed beyond the normal limitation period, and no application for condonation of delay has been made, the appeal is barred by limitation and must be dismissed; the date of receipt of the impugned order, as declared by the appellant in its own statutory form, is the relevant starting point for computing the period 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.14/2005 (V) CH dated 27.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.]
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
M/s. ASSOCIATED CERAMICS LIMITED PO CHIRAKUNDA, DHANBAD DISTRICT, JHARKAND 828 202. Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs And Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-CUS CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 035. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None (Written submission) For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 09/02/2015
Date of Decision: 09/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20309 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
On matter being called neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request. On the other hand, the appellants have filed written submissions saying that Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal on the point of limitation without going to the merits of the case. The appellants contention is that Commissioner (A) has taken the date of despatch as the relevant date for the purpose of limitation whereas the date of receipt has to be considered as the relevant date. There can be at the most delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (A) which he should have condoned and decided the matter on merits.
2. At this stage, learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that the said order of the Commissioner (A) was passed on 27.4.2005 and as per the appellants own declaration in CA-3 Form, the same was received by them on 30.4.2005. The appeal before the Tribunal stands filed on 29.8.2006 with a delay of more than one year and there is no COD application on record.
3. We have seen the appeal records and find that the above stand of the learned DR to be correct. The impugned order of Commissioner (A) was received by the appellant on 30.4.2005 and the normal period for filing the appeal there against expired on or around 30.7.2005. Appeal stands filed on 29.8.2006 without there being any explanation for such delayed filing of appeal. There is no COD application on record. Accordingly, we are of the view that appeal is barred by limitation and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 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