Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kanpur on 15 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 250 of 2012-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 216-217/CE/APPL/KNP/2011 DT. 26.09.2010 passed by Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Surbhi Sinha, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R.K. Mishra, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 15.05.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 52206 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the point of limitation by observing that there was delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal and he has powers to condone the delay of only 30 days.
2. I find that the law is settled. Reference can be made to decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enerprises reported as [2008 (221) ELT 0163 (SC)] wherein it stand held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond a prescribed period of 30 days.
3. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2