Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sharp Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appln.No.E/S/94475/13 APPEAL No.86360/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.47/BPS/MUM/2013 dated 18/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service TAx (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Sharp Industries Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Mumbai Appearance: None for appellant Dr. B.S.Meena, Addl. Comm. (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 10/09/2013 Date of Decision : 10/09/2013 ORDER NO Per: P.R.Chandrasekharan
1. The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.47/BPS/MUM/2013 dated 18/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service TAx (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. None is present on behalf of the appellant, M/s.Sharp Industries Ltd. despite notice.
3. When the case came up for hearing on last time, this Tribunal vide order No.M/1579/13/EB/C-II dated 23/07/2013 adjourned, the application for waiver of dues to today and the Revenue was granted liberty to recover the amount in dispute. When the case was called today, the Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue is not in a position to explain as to what happened to the liberty given to the Revenue and whether the amount is recovered or not. However, he submits that the appeal has been dismissed by the lower appellate authority on account of time bar and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal either. Accordingly, he pleads that the appeal be dismissed.
4. We have perused the records. We notice that the appeal before the lower appellate authority was against the order of detention issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-V, Vasai Division, Thane-II. It was as part of the recovery proceedings, the detention order was passed and the said detention order was received by the appellant on 24/10/2007 whereas the appeal against the said detention order was preferred on 07/12/2011 after a lapse of more than four years. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on account of time bar.
4.1 We also note that the appeal itself was not maintainable before the lower appellate authority as it was against the order of detention as part of recovery proceedings and no appeal lies against recovery proceedings before the lower appellate authority as held by this Tribunal in the Dujodwala Industries case [2003 (153) ELT 359]. Further the appeal has been filed beyond the condonable period of delay. Therefore the appeal has been dismissed correctly by the lower appellate authority.
5. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 1 3