Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Hindusthan Heavy Chemicals vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 July, 2010

        

 

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA


SP-415/10
& Ex. Appeal No.364/10

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.46/Kol.III/10 dated 20.4.2010 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata.
 
For approval and signature:

DR. CHITTARANJAN  SATAPATHY, 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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy 
of  the Order?                                                                 :

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
       Authorities?                                                                    :  
 
M/s Hindusthan Heavy Chemicals
APPELLANT(S)    
  
            VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata
	                                          				               RESPONDENT (S)

APPEARANCE Shri K. P. Dey, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri R. K. Chakraborty, SDR for the Respondent (s) CORAM:

DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of hearing & decision : 08.07.2010 ORDER NO.. Per Dr. Chattaranjan Satapathy :
Heard both sides.

2. For the reason stated below, the requirement of predeposit is waived and the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of both sides.

3. In this case, the appellants filed the impugned appeal before the lower appellate authority beyond the condonable time limit within the competence of the lower appellate authority. Hence, he has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. It is settled law that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the period stipulated in the statute vide the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). Hence, the same requires no interference. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Tribunal is dismissed. Stay petition also gets disposed off. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ ( DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY ) TECHNICAL MEMBER mm 2 Ex.Appeal No.E-364/10