M/S Maliwal Impex Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.E/1258/2011-SM [Arising out of OIA No.319/2011(Ahd-II)CE/PKJ/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.05.09.2011, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad]

M/s Maliwal Impex Pvt.Ltd. Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-II Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: None For Respondent: Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:23.07.2015

Order No. A/11087 / 2015, dt.23.07.2015

Per: H.K. Thakur

This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against OIA dt.05.09.2011. Under this OIA, First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant as time barred as there was a delay of 84 days over and above the appeal period of 60 days, under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. None appears on behalf of the Appellant. It is observed from the case records that on earlier occasions also when the hearings werer fixed on 30.01.2013, 06.05.2013, 28.05.2013, and 05.06.2015, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant. No adjournment request has been received by the Bench.

3. Shri L. Patra, learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Appellant in the grounds of appeal, has not contested the issue of rejection of appeal as time bar.

4. Heard learned Authorised Representative. The First Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the Appellant by not condoning the delay of 84 days over and above the appeal period prescribed. Under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone a delay upto 30 days. Beyond 30 days delay, there is no provision for condoning the delay. Accordingly, appeal of the Appellant has been correctly rejected by the First Appellate Authority as time barred and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Appeal filed by the Appellant is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical)

cbb 2