Ravi Udyog vs Commr. Of C. Ex. & Service Tax-Bbsr-Ii
- Case No.Service Tax Appeal No. ST/70715/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the statutory limitation period, the Commissioner (Appeals) may condone delay only up to a further period of three months beyond the statutory limit, as settled by the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, and the Tribunal has no power to condone such delay; accordingly, an appeal filed after the permissible extended period is liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 19/ST/BBSR-II/2013 dated- 29,03.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE 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?
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 ?
Ravi Udyog
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax-BBSR-II RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
NONE FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri A.K. Biswas, Supdt. (A.R. ) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 14/07/2015
ORDER NO._FO/A/75387/2015_ Per DR. D.M. MISRA None present despite notice. 2. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue.
3. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.25.30 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty.
4. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 7 years , 7 months and 29 days (2799 days). He submits that on the basis of evidences available on record, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded a finding that the Order-in-Original dated 26/05/2005 was served to the appellant on 5/03/2005 by the Range Superintendent when the Order-in-Original earlier sent by Speed Post, returned as undelivered. He submits that no contradictory evidences have been adduced by the appellant rebutting the said observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. We find that the matter was listed for hearing on 18/11/2014 and none appeared and again listed today for hearing but none appeared We find from the order impugned that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of inordinate delay of 2799 days in filing the appeal before him. In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, JSR reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.),, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay for a period of three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months as was in force at the relevant point of time, prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Honble Supreme Court, we do not see any reason to keep the appeal pending, as this Tribunal is also not empowered to condone the said delay. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Stay petition disposed off.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open Court) Sd/- 23/07/15 Sd/- 23/7/15 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/70715/2013
3
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