Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Star Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 19 November, 2014

        

 

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE

Final Order No.    22071 / 2014    
Application(s) Involved:

ST/COD/20666/2014    in    ST/20662/2014-DB
ST/Stay/20665/2014    in    ST/20662/2014-DB

Appeal(s) Involved:

ST/20662/2014-DB 
 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.  153/2012 dated 03/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs,  Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), GUNTUR ]

M/s Star Enterprises 
Prop: Mohammad Ishaq
S/o. Mohammed Umar,
D. No. 8-212, M.G. Road,
Farooq Nagar,
VIJAYAWADA  520007.	Appellant(s)
	
	Versus	
Commissioner of  Central Excise and Service Tax, Guntur 
P.B.NO. 331, C.R.BUILDING,
KANNAVARI THOTA, 
GUNTUR  520004.	Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 19/11/2014 Date of Decision: 19/11/2014 Per B.S.V.MURTHY It has been noticed that appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and Registry has wrongly numbered the application filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). Even though the appellant has given heading as APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL AND STAY PETITION, in the introductory sentence, it has been stated that this application seeks condonation of delay of 431 days involved in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur. Therefore, there is no requirement of condonation of delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal and no application to this effect has been filed.

2. Coming to the appeal and stay petition filed by the appellant, as mentioned in the application for COD, there was a delay of 431 days involved in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which the Commissioner has rightly rejected as not condonable. In view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jamshedpur [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)], neither the Commissioner nor this Tribunal can condone the delay beyond the condonable period prescribed by statute. Therefore, there is no purpose for keeping this stay application and appeal pending. Further, we do not find any necessity to hear the appeal in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above. Accordingly, stay application and appeal stand rejected.

(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/