Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Kashyap Sweetners Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 31 August, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal Nos. : E/10655,10656/2015 Application Nos. : E/COD/10400,10401/2015 (Arising out of OIA-VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-590-591-13-14 dated 14.03.2014, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi) M/s. Kashyap Sweetners Limited : Appellant (s) Shri Jitendra Pandey VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Jagdish Surti, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 31.08.2015 ORDER No. A/11238-11239 / 2015 Dated 31.08.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal.
2. The applicants filed these applications for condonation of delay of filing appeal of 252 days. The learned Advocate submits that the delay was caused as the applicants were pursuing the matter before the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) by stay order directed the applicants to pre-deposit, which was challenged by them before the Hon'ble High Court. In the meantime, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2014. The applicant challenged the impugned order before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the said writ petition by filing amendment to the Writ Petition. It is submitted that by order dated 23.02.2015 in Writ petition No. 1855 of 2015 (Kashyap Sweeteners Limited & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors), the appellants were allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks from the date granted by the Court. Accordingly, they have filed appeal within time as on 05.03.2015. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. CCE 2015-TIOL-90-SC-CUS. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deep Care Health Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Ahmd. -2012 (280) ELT 153 (Tri. Ahmd.), where the delay of 525days was condoned. He submits that in appellants own case, unconditional stay was granted in favour of the assessee.
3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Hon'ble High Court has not given any direction for condonation of delay of filing appeal. He further submits that the impugned order was received by the applicants on 28.3.2014 and no steps was taken within the stipulated time. It is submitted that the applicant filed amendment to the Writ Petition on 02.09.2014.
4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find force in the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. It is seen that the impugned order was received by the applicant on 28.03.2014. It is stated that the applicant challenged the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Honble Bombay High Court. Despite that the applicant had not taken reasonable steps for filing appeal before the Tribunal or challenging the order before any other judicial forum within the stipulated period. The appellant filed amendment to the Writ Petition after about 5 = months after receipt of the impugned order and no explanation was given by the applicant for the delay. It is seen that the Honble High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file appeal before the Tribunal.
5. We agree with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that there is no direction by the Honble High Court for condoning the delay of filing of appeal. Hence, we do not find any reason for condonation of the delay in filing appeal. In the case of M.P. Steel Corporation (supra), the appellant was pursuing the matter before the other forum and therefore, the Honble Supreme Court condoned the delay. In the present case, applicant had not pursued the matter within the stipulated time before any other forum and therefore, the said case law would not apply. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deep Care Health Pvt. Limited (supra), the Tribunal imposed cost on the appellant, payable to the Commissioner of Central Excise. The facts of the said case is different from the present case.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of filing of appeal. COD application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
3