Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
P.M. Chordia vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 April, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION No. ST/S/1089/11 APPEAL No. ST/382/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(62)49/2011 dated 28.3.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== P.M. Chordia Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent Appearance:
None for appellant Shri Sanjay Kalra, Appraiser (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 2.4.2012 Date of Decision: 2.4.2012 ORDER NO Per: Ashok Jindal The appeal along with stay application is listed before us today. When the matter was called, non appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment is made. It is noticed from the record that the matter was earlier listed on 27.2.2012 when also none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
2. On perusal of the record, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant received the order-in-original on 17.5.2010 and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 24.3.2011, therefore he has dismissed the appeal filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. On perusal of the record, we find that as the appeal has no merit, therefore we are disposing of the stay application as well as the appeal today itself. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 85(3) of the Finance Act by the appellant, which needs no intervention from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal along with stay application is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2