M/S.R.S. Casting Ltd vs Cce-Bolpur
- CitationAppeal No.EA-72051/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Excise Act has no power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the outer limit of 30 days over and above the statutory period of 60 days prescribed under section 35A; an appeal filed after that outer limit is not maintainable and must be dismissed, as the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. CCE-JSR requires.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Stay Petition No.SP-80078/13 & Appeal No.EA-72051/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.210/Bol/2012 dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-III) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
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.R.S. Casting Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s) Vs.
CCE-Bolpur Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Kr.Sharma, Accountant for the Appellant (s) Shri M.Chattopadhyay, AC(AR) for the Revenue (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial)
Date of Hearing/Decision :- 11.8.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 11.8.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75428/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This stay application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.7,60,540/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. At the outset the ld.AR for the Revenue has submitted that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 32 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days prescribed under section 35A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the ld.Commissioner is vested with the power to condone the delay of 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days. In support he has referred 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.).
4. I find force in the contention of the ld.AR for the Revenue. In the present case undisputedly there has been a delay of 32 days in filing the appeal before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) and the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is not vested with the power to condone the delay beyond 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterpreises (supra). In the result the Appeal is dismissed. Stay Petition disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/
(D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.EA-72051/13
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