Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sobti Steel Rolling Mills & ... vs C.C.E., Ludhiana on 24 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 24.03.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/65/2012-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.306/CE/LDH/2011, dated 12.10.2011, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Chandigarh-I]
M/s. Sobti Steel Rolling Mills & Castings Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Ludhiana Respondents
Appearance Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate - for the appellants Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.51279/2014, dated 24.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the point of time bar after observing that the impugned order was passed on 29.07.2009 and was received by Shri Kaushal, the appellants representative after putting his signature against Sl.No.5891, dated 29.07.2009. In as much as the appeal was filed on 17.02.2010, even after condonable period of 30 days, he has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.
2. The appellants have tried to rebut the finding of the receipt of the impugned order by contesting that the signatures appearing against the despatch entry No.5891, dated 21.07.2009 are not the signature of Shri Kaushal, their representative. In support, an affidavit stands filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has not accepted the same.
3. I have seen the entry No.5891, showing the despatch of the order passed by the original adjudicating authority and receipt of the same by Shri Kaushal, the applicants representative. Admittedly, at the time of receipt of the orders, the recipient only puts his initials and not the complete regular signatures. The contention of the appellants that they are not the regular signatures of Shri Kaushal cannot be appreciated in as much as the Revenue will not gain anything by showing the receipt of the impugned order by Shri Kaushal, who according to the Revenue has gone to the office and receipted the order in person. I find no merits in the contention of the appellants that the impugned order was not received by their representative.
4. The appeal having been admittedly filed after stipulated period of 60 days and even after the condonable period of 30 days stands correctly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in as much as it is a settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and cannot condone the delay beyond 30 days.
5. In view of the above, I find no merits in the appeal filed by the appellants and accordingly the same is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-