Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Central Warehousing Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 17 June, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/COD/20382/2015 in ST/20499/2015-DB ST/Stay/20383/2015 in ST/20499/2015-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/20499/2015-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. BLR-CUSTM-000-COM-001-14-15 dated 10/04/2014 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS , BANGALORE-I ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Central Warehousing Corporation Regional Ofice No 9, Mission Road BANGALORE - 560027 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-i POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri SOWBHAGYAN A, Advocate 11/1, CRESENT ROAD, HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 17/06/2015 Date of Decision: 17/06/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21380 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The prayer is to condone the delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal. The impugned order is dated 10/04/2014 and was received by the appellant on 15/04/2014.
2. As per the appellant, there after the said order was referred to their headquarters in Delhi, who opined that same should be challenged before the higher appellate forum. Thereafter the papers were handed over to their counsel for drafting the appeal on 10/12/2014 and the drafted appeal was sent again to their headquarters on 05/01/2015 and they received back the vetted appeal on 25/02/2015. Thereafter the same was filed with the Registry on 06/03/2015.
3. We, after going through the relevant dates, find no justifiable reason for such a long delay of 234 days in filing the present appeal. The order was admittedly received on 15/04/2014 and as per the appellants own contention, the matter was handed over to their counsel for preparation of the appeal on 10/12/2014. There is no explanation coming for the intervening period of April 2014 to December 2014. Why the headquarters has taken so long time to advise the appellant to file an appeal is not answered and does not stand explained. Such huge delays which are unexplained and not giving any reason cannot be condoned for mere asking.
3. As we find no sufficient plausible explanation for the delay, we reject the COD application. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned, the appeal along with stay application also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja.
3