M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata
- CitationAppeal No.ST-91/11
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the statutory period of sixty days together with the condonable further period of thirty days is not maintainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) is bound to dismiss it on that ground, following the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, which holds that the appellate authority has no power to entertain an appeal filed after the outer limit of the condonable period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.29/SLG/2010 dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-IV) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, 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 Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri N.D.Sahu, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
Shri S.P.Pal, Appraiser(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 23.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 23.09.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75509/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Admittedly Appeal has been filed before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) beyond the statutory period of 60(sixty) days and condonable limit of 30(thirty) days. The ld.Commissioner referring to the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE-JSR. 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163(S.C.), dismissed their case.
3. We do not find any discrepancy in the reasoning of the ld.Commissioner(Appeals). Consequently the Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Stay Petition disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.ST-91/11
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