2018 (9) TMI 1121 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – It is the grievance of the appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not condoned the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal – Held that:- As per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only powers to condone delay upto 30 days – The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises [2007 (12) TMI 11 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has categorically held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the said permit provided in the statute – application dismissed. – E/EH/40400/2018 and E/41201/2018 – Final Order No. 42027/2018 – Dated:- 17-7-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ionary authority. The other appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 208 days. The delay occurred because the concerned person who handled the matter did not inform the management with regard to the said appeal. He therefore submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay and accepted the appeal. The appellant therefore seeks out of turn hearing of the appeal. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order and also concurred to the early disposal of the appeal. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal which is beyond the condonable period of the Commissioner (Appeals). As per the statute, the Commissioner (Appeals) can c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hat the Commissioner (Appeals) has not condoned the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal. As per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only powers to condone delay upto 30 days. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) has categorically held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the said permit provided in the statute. For this reason, we find that the impugned order calls for no interference. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The early hearing application is disposed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxmanagementindi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =