The Kovvur Municipality vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ...
- CitationAppeal No. 36/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period of one month, and an appeal presented after that period, even where the delay is only 64 days, must be dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 36/2013 (G) ST dated 12/06/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, GUNTUR (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?
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
The Kovvur Municipality Kovvur (PO), WEST GODAVARI DIST. AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR P.B.NO. 331, C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
CH.VENKATESWARA RAO ADV H.NO.5-21-104, 2/18, BRODIPET,GUNTUR-522022-AP For the Appellant
Mr. R. Gurunathan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 16/06/2015
Date of Decision: 16/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21359 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
After hearing both the sides, we find that Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation by observing that there was a delay of 64 days in presenting the appeal before him and he has no power to condone the said delay which is beyond the period of one month.
2. The issue is no longer res integra and stand settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur: 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). As such we find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (A).
The stay petition along with appeal is rejected.
(Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 2
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