Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) vs Archean Granites Pvt. Ltd on 15 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/COD/229/10, C/S/188/10 & C/272/10
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.92/2010 dt. 19.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
Commissioner of Customs (Imports),
Chennai
Appellant
Versus
Archean Granites Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 15.7.2010 Date of decision : 15.7.2010 Final Order No.____________ Heard both sides.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs with a stay application and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The authorization which has been filed from the Committee of Commissioners only authorizes filing of the appeal and filing of the stay petition. It does not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to file the application for condonation of delay.
3. Secondly, it is seen from the application for condonation of delay filed by the said Deputy Commissioner that the delay is on account of :-
4. As the issue involved in this case is sensitive in nature, a proper care is made in deciding the quantum of ground on which appeal has to be filed. Hence there is an unavoidable delay of 11 days occurred in the finalization of appeal papers.
5. The delay is not intentional. The delay is due to the circumstances beyond the departments control.
4. Apart from the fact that there is no authorization to file the application for condonation of delay, the reason given for the delay is highly unsatisfactory. I find that the lower appellate authority has asked the original authority to hear the appellants and pass a speaking order. Therefore, it is not obvious how the case is sensitive in nature requiring more time to consider filing an appeal.
5. I am of the view that this is not a fit case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Hence the COD application along with appeal and the stay petition is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 3