Tulsi Mineral Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 523-2012 dated 08/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) , MANGALORE ]

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?

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?

Tulsi Mineral Products Plot No.59/b, Tarihal Industrial Area, Hubli-580030 HUBLI - 580030 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BELGAUM NULL NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri SUDHEENDRA P. GHALI, Authorises representative PRACTICING COMPANY SEVRETARY 102, HARI APARTMENTS, COLLEGE ROAD, BELGAUM-590001 For the Appellant

Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/02/2015

Date of Decision: 19/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20413 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After rejecting stay petition, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the point of time bar.

2. After hearing both the sides and after going through the impugned orders, we find that the order of the original adjudicating authority was issued on 28/02/2011 and as per the appellant the same was received on 14/03/2011. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner(Appeals) with a delay of 2 months and 29 days. The appellant authority called for a report from the office of the Assistant Commissioner who produced on record, the acknowledgement issued by the Postal Department showing the date of receipt as 04/03/2011. He also observed that initially the appellant had shown the date as 04/03/2011 only and the same was subsequently corrected by the consultant under his signatures. Accordingly by taking the date of receipt as 04/03/2011, he has observed that he has no powers to condone the delay beyond the statutory period provided under the law.

3. We find that the legal issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises [2008(221) ELT 163(SC)] laying down that Commissioner(Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the condonable period provided under the law. The only dispute remains to be decided in the present appeal is as regards the date of receipt of the impugned order. Whereas the Revenue has produced on record documentary evidence in the shape of acknowledgement to reflect upon the fact of receipt as on 04/03/2011, the appellants contention is that the said order was received by their gardener working in the factory and was actually handed over to the Managing Director on 14/03/2011. As such, the learned authorized representative for the appellant submits that 14/03/2011 should be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of limitation.

4. We find no merits in the above plea of the appellant. The date of receipt of the order by an employee of the company is the relevant date and does not further depend upon the handing over of the order to the Managing Director. Admittedly in the present case, order was received by the appellant on 04/03/2011 and as such appeal filed after delay of more than 2= months has been correctly held to be time-barred by Commissioner(Appeals). We find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the assessee. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of.

(Operative portion of this order pronounced in court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.

4