M/S.Kamdhenu Electronics Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...
- CitationAppeal No.S.T. 75893/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the three-month limit prescribed by that section, over and above the statutory period, and an appeal filed beyond that outer limit is liable to be dismissed as time-barred, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. CCE.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Stay Petition No.SP-76006/14 & Appeal No.S.T. 75893/14 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.23/RAN/2014 dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE DR. I.P. LAL, 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.Kamdhenu Electronics Pvt.Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s) Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri A.Medi, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri K.Choudhury, Supdt.(A.R.) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 21.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 21.04.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75223/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.26,901/- and penalty of Rs.29,901/- under Section 78 and Rs.2,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue at the outset pointed out that the Appeal has been filed beyond the condonable limit of (3) three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months prescribed at Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. He submits that in view of the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur 2008 (221) ELT 163, the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not been vested the power to condone the delay beyond three months in addition to the statutory limit of 3 (three) months.
4. We find force in the argument of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. Consequently the Appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra). Appeal dismissed. Stay Petition disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.S.T. 75893/14
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