Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Narnolia Securities Pvt. Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise & S. Tax, Ranchi on 15 July, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Service Tax Appeal No. 38/09
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 52/RAN/2008 dated-27.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)
For approval and signature:
Shri S.S. KANG, Honble Vice President
===========================================
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 ?
Narnolia Securities Pvt. Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s) Vs. Commr. of Central Excise & S. Tax, Ranchi Respondent (s) Appearance:
NONE for the Applicant/Appellant (s) Sri B.B. Agarwal, Jt. CDR for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Shri S.S. KANG, Honble Vice President Date of Hearing : 15/07/09 Date of decision: -15/07/2009 ORDER NO Per Shri S.S. Kang When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice.
2. Heard the Ld. Jt. CDR.
3. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time bar.
4. The Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order held that the adjudication order dated 28.03.2008 was received by the appellant. However, the appeal was filed after the period of limitation, condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order after the period of limitation as provided under the Central Excise Act and Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act. This issue is settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Jamshedpur-2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.).The Honble Supreme Court held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period provided by the Act. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Sd/-
( S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No. 38/09 2