Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Nagar Palika Prishad (Nowgong Dist., ... vs C.C.E. & S.T., Bhopal on 16 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-DB
COURT III
Service Tax COD Application No.ST/COD/50246/2016-ST [DB]
Service Tax COD Application No.ST/COD/51275/2016-ST [DB] in
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/50241/2016-ST [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BPL-EXCUS-000-Misc.-133-134-14-15 dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal]
Service Tax COD Application No.ST/COD/50247/2016-ST [DB]
Service Tax COD Application No.ST/COD/51274/2016-ST [DB] in
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/50245/2016-ST [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BPL-EXCUS-000-Misc.-133-134-14-15 dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MR. V.PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Nagar Palika Parishad (Chhatarpur)
Nagar Palika Prishad (Nowgong Dist., Chhatarpur Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T., Bhopal Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Mr. Pradumana Singh, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE MR. V.PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 16.08.2016
FINAL ORDER NO. 53106-53107/2016
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
The appellants have filed the COD applications, seeking condonation of delay of more than 1 year in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reason of delay as explained in the COD applications is that against the adjudication order, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition before the Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2015, in directing the appellants to take recourse of statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. On receipt of the order of Honble High Court, the appellants have filed the appeals before the Tribunal. We find that the reason of delay is genuine, which can be condoned in the interest of justice. Thus, we condone the delay in late filing of appeals before the Tribunal.
2. With the consent of both sides, we take up the appeal for final disposal.
3. The short question involved in these appeals are that whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone the delay of more than 5 months in filing the appeals before him. Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 deals with filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said Section mandates that appeals shall be filed within 2 months from the date of receipt of decision or order of the adjudicating authority. The proviso appended to Section 85 provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) can permit the appellant to present the appeal within a further period of one month thereafter. Thus, the statutory provisions are clear that beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of the adjudication order, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to condone the delay in late filing of appeal. In the present case, since the adjudication orders were passed on 28.11.2013 and 3.12.2013 and the appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.05.2014 and 22.05.2014 respectively, admittedly, there is delay of more than three months prescribed under the statute. Thus, dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation is in conformity with the statutory provisions. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the appeals filed by the appellants.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(V.PADMANABHAN) (S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0
3