Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Shri Gajanand Chauhan, ... on 30 April, 2010
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/380 of 2009 (Application No. ST/S/1656 of 2009) Arising out of : OIA No. RKA/372/SRT-I/2009 dt. 08.6.2009 Passed by : Commr. (Appeals), C.Ex. & Cus., Surat For approval and signature : Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, 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? 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 Appellant (s) : M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited Represented by : Shri Gajanand Chauhan, Branch Manager Respondent (s) : Commissioner, C. Excise & Cus. Surat
Represented by : Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR CORAM :
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 30.04.2010 Date of Decision : 30.04.2010 ORDER No. _____________ /WZB/AHD/2010 Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, In this case, the appeal has been filed against the Order in Original which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that appeal was filed on 16.1.2009 whereas Order in Original was received by them on 14.3.2008. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that appeal has been filed beyond the condonable period and therefore, he cannot condone the delay of more than 200 days being beyond the limit of condonation. Since the appeal itself was filed before Commissioner (Appeals), I consider that issue involved is only limitation and take up the appeal itself for final decision after allowing the stay petition.
2. Since the Tribunal can consider whether the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper and in this case, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay, the impugned order has to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (B.S.V. Murthy) Member (Technical) KL 2