M/S. Bharat Insecticides Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Jammu & Kashmir

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal15 July 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/50475-50481/2015-EX(DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The application for condonation of an 812-day delay in filing the appeals is dismissed on the ground that the appellant's own understanding that the impugned order was in its favour, reflected in its implementation of that order by the Adjudicating Authority, precludes it from later asserting that the order was adverse to it so as to justify the delay; consequent to refusal of condonation, the appeals themselves are dismissed as time-barred.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIApplication No. E/COD/50369-50375/2015-EX(DB)Appeal No. E/50475-50481/2015-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 155-161/CE/APPL/CHD-II(JK)/2012 dated 08.11.2012 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh-II].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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?

M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Jammu & Kashmir .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri M.S. Negi, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 15.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52260-52266/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeals along with applications for Condonation of Delay.

2. The appellants had filed these appeals with a delay of 812 days and seeking condonation of delay on the grounds that as when the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) impugned in these appeals on 13.08.2012 which was received by them on 13.11.2012 they were under the impression that order was in favour of the appellant, in fact, when order was against the appellant and they have challenged the finding of the impugned order. Therefore, delay has been caused.

3. Heard the Ld. Counsel.

4. Considering the fact that it was understanding of the appellant that impugned order was in their favour and the said order has been implemented in their own favour by the Adjudicating Authority. In these circumstances, now the appellant cannot claim that impugned order was against them, and that to be the reason for Condonation of Delay.

5. In these circumstances, we dismiss the application for Condonation of Delay. Consequently, appeals are also dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/50475-50481/2015-EX(DB)

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