2019 (2) TMI 1171 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Time Limitation – Rebate claim – sanction of amount of ₹ 79,146/- by way of credit in Cenvat Credit account is objected – Held that:- The Order-in-Original was announced on 22.09.2017 and appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 5 months over and above, the period of 90 days. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of the order under challenge has specifically observed that the original order was dispatched on the date of order itself to the appellant – There is no other evidence as could be produced by the appellant about receiving the said order on 2nd April 2018 i.e. after a delay of 8 months. In the absence of any evidence to said effect and in absence of any other reasonable explanation by the appellant even in the grounds of appeal, there is no infirmity in the order under challenge – appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Excise Appeal No.E/53354/2018-EX [SM] – Final Order No. 50275 /2019 – Dated:- 11-2-2019 – HON BLE
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
7; 38,25,664/- as was paid on goods exported during the month of December, 2016 to April 2017. The refund claims were allowed. The sanction of ₹ 37,46,518/- in cash is nowhere in dispute However, the sanction of balance amount of ₹ 79,146/- by way of credit in Cenvat Credit account has been objected to by the appellant against which the appeal was preferred before Commissioner (Appeals) and that the appeal has been dismissed as being filed beyond the period of 90 days. 3. Further perusal shows that the Order-in-Original was announced on 22.09.2017 and appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 5 months over and above, the period of 90 days. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of the order under challenge has specifically observed that the original order was dispatched on the date of order itself to the appellant. There is no other evidence as could be produced by the appellant about receiving the said order on 2nd April 2018 i.e. after a delay of 8 months. In the absence
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
te of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =