Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Kerala State Pollution Control ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 November, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 26982/2013 Application(s) Involved: C/Stay/25053/2013 in C/25063/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: C/25063/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 26/2012 dated 04/09/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin The Kerala State Pollution Control Board [Represented By Its Member Secretary], KSPCB Office, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004 Kerala Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax T.C. No. 26/334(1&2), I.C.E Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum - 695 001 Kerala Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 22/11/2013 Date of Decision: 22/11/2013 The learned counsel for the appellant is seeking adjournment on the ground that he has to be present in the High Court today. However after hearing the learned AR and going through the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant against the confirmation of duty demand on sound level meter imported by the Pollution Control Board on the ground that appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. On going through the appeal memorandum filed by the appellants in form CA-1, I find that the date of communication of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs has been indicated as 07.06.2007 and the verification of the statement of facts and the appeal filed by the officer of the Board is dated 02.12.2008. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was received in his office on 11.12.2008 which is more than one year from the date of communication of the order. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C)] has held that when statute fixes a specified period for filing the appeal and also the condonable period, no authority has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Under these circumstances neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor of Tribunal can condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Under these circumstances no purpose would be served by keeping the stay application or the appeal filed by the appellant on record. Accordingly both stay application and appeal are rejected on the above grounds.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss