M/S. Sivalogam Steels Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Chennai-Iii

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal16 September 2015

CitationAppeal No. 121,122/2013 dated 10.09.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an appellant has received the impugned order and the limitation period has run from the date of receipt, personal circumstances such as dislocation of residence or a family bereavement do not, without more, constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay of that length; the delay is therefore not condoned, and the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAIE/COD/40253-40254/2015 in E/40662-40663/2015

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 121,122/2013 dated 10.09.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).

1. M/s. Sivalogam Steels Pvt. Ltd. : Applicants

2. Shri Thanigaivel

Vs.

CCE & ST, Chennai-III : Respondent

Date of Hearing/Decision: 16.09.2015

Appearance

Shri M. Mathivanan, Adv., For the applicants

Shri R. Subramanyan, AC (AR) For the respondent

CORAM

Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. CHOUDHARY, Judicial Member

FINAL ORDER No. 41234-41235 / 2015

Per: R. Periasami

The applicants have filed these applications for condonation of delay of 405 days in preferring the appeals.

2. Ld. Advocate representing the applicants submits that they have received the Commissioner (Appeals) Order dated 10.09.2013 only on 05.11.2013. The appeal could not be filed in time as the appellant was dislocated from their existing residence and due to sudden demise of the Directors mother on 10.02.2014. For these reasons they could not file the appeal in time. He pleads that the delay may be condoned.

3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that the applicants have duly received the order on 05.11.2013. He relied on the decision in the case of Penna Cement Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur 2006 (206) ELT 317 (Tri.- Bang.).

4. After hearing both sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 10.09.2013 was received on 05.11.2013 as confirmed by the applicants themselves. From the date of receipt of the order the last date of filing of appeal was 04.02.2014. After the delay of more than 405 days they have filed the appeal on 17.03.2015. We find that once the order has been received by the appellant on 05.11.2013, they are aware of the consequences and remedies available. We also find that the impugned order is denovo order when the this Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2012 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, there was no justification for delay of 405 days. The applicants justification of dislocation of residence after the receipt of the order and other personal reasons are not valid grounds for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to condone the delay of 405 days. Accordingly, COD applications are rejected. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed as time barred.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER

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