Satyapal Sachdev vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 38/JSR/2013 dated-25/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur) For approval and signature of: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI H.K. THAKUR, 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 ?

Satyapal Sachdev APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur RESPONDENT(S) APPEARANCE

Sri Anupam Anand, Advocate FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S.S. Chatterjee, Supdt. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 13/10/2015

ORDER NO :FO/A/75596/15 Per DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application filed seeking condonation of delay of 322 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

2. The Ld. Adv. Submits that the Order-in-Appeal was received by them on 18.03.2013 and the Appeal was filed by them on 03.02.2014. Explaining the delay, the Ld. Adv. Submits after receiving the Order they filed a writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Jharkhand which was disposed on 03.12.2013. It is his contention that major portion of the period of delay is due to pursuing the remedy before the Hon'ble High Court.

3. In view of the reasons explained, the delay in filing the Appeal before this Tribunal is condoned.MA(COD) allowed

4. At this stage, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal on the ground that the applicant had filed the appeal before him beyond the condonable limit of three months in addition to the statutory period of of three months prescribed under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.).

5. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that he does not dispute the delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). However, explaining the delay, he submits that since the applicant proprietor of the firm was suffering from paralytic attack, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time and the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have condoned the said bonafide delay.

6. We find force in the submission of the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. We are of the opinion that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is not vested with the power to condone delay beyond three months in addition to the statutory period of three months prescribed under the Finance Act,1994 in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Singh Enterprises s case(supra). In the result, the appeal is dismissed. S.P. disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 26/10/15 Sd/- 23/10/15 (H.K. THAKUR) (D.M. MISRA) Technical Member Judicial Member

k.b/-

Service Tax Appeal No. : ST/75156/2014

3