Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Lalitha Chem Industries Pvt Ltd vs Cce & St Vapi on 21 November, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/11665-11666/2017, E/11675/2017 (Arising out of OIA No. OIA-VAD-EXCUS-003-APP-07-09-17-18 dated 25.05.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vapi,) 1. M/s Lalitha Chem Industries Pvt Ltd. 2. Shri Sobray S Hosmane 3. Shri Veena S Hosmane : Appellant (s) Vs CCE & ST Vapi : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : None For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, AR CORAM :
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision:21.11.2017 ORDER No. 13650-13652/2017 Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein the appeals have been dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) as time barred.
2. None present on behalf of the appellants despite notice nor any request for adjournment. Considering the fact that the issue lies in a narrow compass, therefore, the appeals are taken up for disposal.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (A) within a delay of 237 days. They have contended that the said delay has been occurred due to the adjudication order was received by a person who did not inform to the manager at their registered office in Mumbai who used to deal with excise related matters. Therefore, the delay is to be condoned relying on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishamurthy reported in 2003 (228) ELT 162 (S.C) to say that while considering the delay in fling the appeal, if, reasons of delay in fling the appeal has been explained the delay can be condoned.
5. I perused the impugned order and found that as per Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1994, the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A) required to be filing within 60 days of the receipt of the adjudication order and said period can be extended by 30 days for the reasons of delay explained by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The same view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.). Further, I find that the appellants have relied on the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra) to say that delay can be condoned. I find that in the said case, delay was condoned under the Limitation Act whereas in this case, the Central Excise Act itself as prescribed time limit in fling the appeal. Therefore, in the light of the decision in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) the appeals filed by the appellants are beyond the limitation period. In that circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly dismissed the appeals as time barred. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld.
6. In result, the appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) G.Y. 2 Appeal No. E/11665-11666/2017, E/11675/2017