Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Steel Authority Of India vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 17 June, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
STAY PETITION NO.E/S/80157/2013
AND
EXCISE APPEAL NO.E/A/72109/2013
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.96/RAN/2012 DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RANCHI)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES OF
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA
APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RANCHI
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRI ABHISEK ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S);
SHRI S.MISRA, A.R.(ADDL. COMMR.) FOR THE REVENUE. CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing & Decision:17.6.2014 ORDER NO.FO/A/75384/2014 Per Dr. D.M.Misra This Application is filed seeking waiver of predeposit of Rs.17.73 lakh and equal amount of penalty.
2. At this outset, ld. AR (Additional Commissioner), Shri S.Misra appearing for the Revenue, submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the Appellant on the ground that there was a delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before him. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, 2008(221)ELT 163(SC), the Commissioner is not empowered to condone the delay beyond ninety days i.e.the statutory limit of sixty days plus thirty days being the condonable limit.
3. Ld. Advocate, Shri Abhisek Anand for the Applicant, refers to the judgment of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd., 2014(301)ELT 209(P & H), where the Honble High Court has remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afresh.
4. In his rejoinder, the ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the said judgment may not be applicable at this stage, because while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the said case of JCB India (supra), after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. However, in view of the judgment in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), this Tribunal cannot condone the delay beyond ninety days.
5. Heard and perused the records. We find that the ld. Commissioner, without discussing the merit of the case, has dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground of inordinate delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before him. We agree with the ld. AR for the Revenue that in view of the judgment in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), the ld. Commissioner has no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit of sixty days plus the condonable limit of thirty days. In view of the said ratio, we do not find any discrepancy/error in the Order impugned. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Order is upheld and the Appeal is consequently dismissed. The Stay Petition also stands disposed off. (Pronounced & dictated in the open court.) SD/-20.06.14 SD/-20.06.14 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) DUTTA/ 3 E/A/72109/2013 3