M/S. Reyami Interiors Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 299/2014-CE dated 26/05/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

M/s. Reyami Interiors Pvt. Ltd. No.546. 1st Floor CMH Road, Indiara Nagar, BANGALORE - 560038 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE  560 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Ms. Vijaya Prakash, Advocate G.SAMPATH & S. RAGHU 543,12TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN J.P NAGARA 2ND PAHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. KARANATAKA For the Appellant

Mr. K.T.Pakshirajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 04/06/2015

Date of Decision: 04/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21276 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The prayer in the application is to condone the delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal.

2. As per facts on record, the impugned order stands passed on 26.5.2014 and was admittedly received by the appellant on 31.5.2014. The period to file the appeal against the said impugned order expired on 31.8.2014 whereas the appeal stands filed on 7.4.2015.

2.1 The only reason advanced by the appellant for delayed filing of the appeal is that in terms of the amended provisions of Section 35F, they have to deposit 10% of the duty confirmed against them. Inasmuch as they were not having sufficient funds to deposit the amount, they did not file the appeal within time. Learned advocate accordingly prays for condoning the delay.

3. We find that the duty confirmed in the said appeal is to the extent of Rs.31 lakhs and 10% of the same comes to around Rs.3 lakhs. The appellants have not shown documents on record that the deposit of an amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which is much on the lower side, was so difficult for them so as not to file the appeal within the limitation period. Apart from that we also note that it is not a case where the appellant presented the appeal to the Registry within the limitation period and Registry refused to accept the same. Condonation of delay on this ground would automatically extend the period of limitation, at the whims and fancy of the assessees, which cannot be permitted. The said ground advanced by the appellant cannot be considered to be a reasonable ground for delayed filing of the appeal.

4. Accordingly, we refuse to condone the delay and reject the COD application. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned the appeal is required to be dismissed as barred by limitation. We order accordingly.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv 2