M/S. Indo Mecha Engineering Services vs Commissioner Of Customs &

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal9 February 2015

CitationAppeal No. 50371 of 2014 - ST (SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Finance Act, 1994 is filed beyond the two-month statutory period, the appellate authority may condone a further delay of one month only, upon a showing of sufficient cause; an appeal filed after that extended period is time-barred and cannot be entertained, and the Tribunal will not interfere with the dismissal of such an appeal 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. IIST Appeal No. 50371 of 2014 - ST (SM)ST Stay Application No. 50479 of 2014 - ST (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 141(VC)ST/JPR-I/13 dated 3.10.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, (Appeals) Jaipur]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. R K Singh, 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. Indo Mecha Engineering Services Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs & Respondent

Central Excise, ST, Jaipur.

Appearance:

Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri B B Sharma, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. R K Singh, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing /decision: 9. 2.2015

ORDER NO. FO 50330 /2015-ST(Br)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal along with an application for stay against the operation of impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal as time barred.

2. The facts of the case are that the order in original was received by the applicant on 4.9.12 and against the said order they have filed an appeal on 5.2.13 with a delay of 125 days. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have dismissed the appeal as time barred as the statutory period for filing the appeal has expired . Against the said order appellant is before us.

3. Heard the learned Counsel.

4. Considering the fact that statutory period for filing the appeal as prescribed under second proviso to section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal was required to be filed within 2 months and thereafter on being shown sufficient cause for causing delay, the period of limitation can be extended by another one month. Admittedly, in this case appeal has been filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the condonable period therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly the same is upheld. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant along with stay application are dismissed.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

( R K Singh )

Member(Judicial)

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