Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 14 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. APPEAL No. ST/268/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SR/183/NGP/2009 dated 26.8.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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?
====================================================== Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent Appearance: None for appellant Shri S.M. Vaidya, Authorised Representative (JDR), for respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 14.9.2010 Date of Decision: 14.9.2010 ORDER NO.................................
The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of dismissal of their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.
2. Despite notice neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment is received. Earlier also when the matter was listed on 5.8.2010, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, the matter was taken up to decide on merits.
3. The appellant had received the order-in-original dated 13.2.2009 on 3.3.2009. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 7.7.2009. These facts are not in dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the appellant has failed to file the appeal within the statutory period of 60 days and not within the extended period of 30 days also. Hence the appeal has been filed beyond a period of limitation and the same was rejected.
4. Considered. It is not in dispute that the appellant has filed this appeal after 125 days of the receipt of the order-in-original. As per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal can be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days of the receipt of the order-in-original, the Commissioner (Appeals) is having a discretion to allow the appeal if it is filed within another 30 days of the statutory period of filing the appeal. In this case, the appeal has been filed by the appellant beyond the period of 90 days. In the case of Navinon Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2006 (205) ELT 71 (Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that appeal preferred beyond 30 days of expiry of statutory period of 60 days held to be time-barred and the same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Kouni Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore reported in 2010 (17) STR 442 (Tri.-Bang.). Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 3