M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Cce&St, Lucknow
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. 50143 of 2015-SM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate authority must reject an appeal filed beyond the sixty-day limitation period prescribed for appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), where no application for condonation of delay has been made; the limitation period runs from the date of service of the primary (adjudication) order, and where the appeal is filed outside that period without a condonation application, the bar of limitation applies and the appeal is liable to be rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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?
Service Tax Appeal No. 50143 of 2015-SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No. 140-ST/LKO/2014 dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow).
M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Appellant
Vs.
CCE&ST, Lucknow Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate for the appellant
Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Commissioner (DR) for the Respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Final Order No. 51749/2015
Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
Appeal is preferred against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17.09.2014 whereby the appeal of the appellant herein, preferred against the adjudication order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Sitapur was rejected on the ground that appeal was preferred beyond the period of 60 days provided for filing an appeal before the appellate Commissioner and without an application for condonation of delay.
2. The relevant facts as noticed in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are that the appeal was preferred on 03.06.2013 against the adjudication order dated 11.03.2013 which was served on the appellant on 20.03.2013, beyond the period of 60 days from the date of service of primary order. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore concluded that since the primary order was served on the appellant on 20.03.2013, the appeal was filed beyond the normal period of sixty days without an application for condonation of delay. This fact is recorded in para 9 of the impugned order.
3. In the circumstances, the learned appellate Commissioner is seen to have rightly rejected the appeal, on the bar of limitation. We find no reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal. No costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
Pant
1
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