M/S. Riviera Textiles vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rohtak
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/53930/2014-E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal must be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days of communication of the decision or order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) may condone delay only for a further 30 days, so that beyond 90 days from communication the Commissioner (Appeals) has no statutory power to condone delay and must reject an appeal filed out of time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. DEL-EXCUS-003-APP-253-14-15, dated 15.05.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals) Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 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. Riviera Textiles ...Appellant
(Now Riviera Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.)
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Rohtak Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma (Advocate) for the Appellant
Mr. G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing.07.08.2015
Final Order No. 53996 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) wherein, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed on the ground of limitation holding that the Commissioner is not empower to condone the delay of 1116 days.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
3. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides filing of Appeal by the aggrieved person before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) within a period of 60 days from the date of communication to him of such decisions or order. As per the proviso to the said section, the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone the delay for a period of 30 days for presenting the appeal, if any, beyond the period of statutory time limit of 60 days. On perusal of the said statutory provisions, it reveals that beyond the period of 90 days from the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved person, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not statutorily empowered to condone the delay. In the present case, it is an admitted fact on record that the order in original was received by the appellant on 30.10.2006 and the appeal was filed on 20.11.2009, causing a delay of 1116 days. Thus, rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation is in conformity with the statutory provisions. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellant, and thus, the same is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
2 | Page
E/53930/2014-Ex[SM]
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