Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Salem Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 December, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/S/41004/2013 & E/41374/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.68/2013-ST dt. 22-03-2013passed by the Commissioner ofCentral Excise (Appeals),Coimbatore]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri MATHEW JOHN, Technical Member
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Salem Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise
Salem
Respondent
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of hearing : 13-12-2013 Date of decision : 13-12-2013 FINAL ORDER No.40643/2013
1. None appears on behalf of the applicant. The matter was already adjourned on 23-08-2013, 27-09-2013 and 08-11-2013 and the case was posted for hearing today. Today none appears on behalf of the applicant. There is no request for adjournment either. Therefore, Ld. AR for Revenue was heard for disposal of the matter.
2. I find that issue lies on a narrow compass. So it was decided to take up the appeal after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.
3. Ld. AR submits that in this case, Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for the reason that appeal was filed after 153 days after the receipt of the impugned order by the appellant and there was delay of 93 days beyond the prescribed period of 60 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) and this delay is beyond the power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the same. The Hon.Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs CCE - 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in the statute. Ld. AR also points out that during the personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), they did not contest the date of receipt of the order and the delay involved. Therefore there is nothing wrong in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I have considered submissions of Ld. AR and perused the file and I find that in view of the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court cited supra, the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable and therefore there is no reason to entertain the appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Stay Petition also is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MATHEW JOHN) TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 2