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 N.T.P.C Ltd vs Cce, Ghaziabad on 15 December, 2011

        

 
	CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
	                  PRINCIPAL BENCH,  NEW DELHI
				   Court No.I


              E/Stay No.2531/2010 in E/Appeal No.2751/2010

(Arising out of order in appeal No.69/Gzb/2010 dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad )

					             Date of Hearing: 15.12.2011

	
M/s N.T.P.C	 Ltd		                       Appellants

	Vs

CCE, Ghaziabad 				     Respondent

          E/Stay No.2532/2010 in E/Appeal No.2752/2010

M/s N.T.P.C	 Ltd		                       Appellants

	Vs

CCE, Ghaziabad 				     Respondent

Appeared for the Appellant:     None
Appeared for the Respondent: Shri I. Beg , DR

Coram:  Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
	    Honble Mr. Mathew John, Member (Technical)

						    
			ORDER	

Per S.S. Kang:

Heard the learned SDR. The applicant filed this application for wavier of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,03,287/- along with interest and penalty. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) is dismissed as time barred.

2. We find that the adjudication order was received by the appellant on 3.12.2009 and the appeal is filed on 2.2.2001. As per Section 35-F of Central Excise Act, the appeal is to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. Taking into consideration the dates mentioned in the impugned order, there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone the delay of 30 days after the normal period on showing sufficient cause. As there is only one day delay in filing the appeal and the reason for delay is explained by the appellant, National Thermal Power Corporation. In these circumstances, we find that delay of one day is condonable and we condone the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits.

3. After waiving of requirement of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thereafter decide the appeal.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) (S.S. KANG) Vice President (MATHEW JOHN) Technical Member MPS* 2