2019 (3) TMI 96 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Condonation of delay n filing appeal – appeal dismissed on the ground of time bar – relevant dates for communication/service of order – Valuation – manufacture of various gases – Held that:- The order of the Original Authority dated 31 December 2015 was dispatched by RPAD and is shown by the post office records to have been delivered on 13 January 2016. Even though the appellant has procured another certified copy of the order on 26 August 2016, we are of the view that the date of service of the order-in-original is to be considered as 13 January 2016, since the order was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 37C (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
–
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Singh Enterprises [2007 (12) TMI 11 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delay beyond the period of one month after the normal time limit of two months.
–
There is no infirmity i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
31 December 2015 was dispatched by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). The appellant received a recovery notice for the demand raised in the order-in-original on 8 August 2016. Claiming that the order-in-original was not received by the appellant, they approached the Department for a certified copy of the order. The same was received on 26 August 2016 and the order-in-original was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing the appeal on September 19, 2016. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar. The verification report from the post office indicated that the order-in-original 31 December 2015 was received in the appellant s factory on 13 January 2016. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) took this date as the date of receipt of the order and held that the appeal was required to be filed by 12 March 2016. Since, the same was filed on 19 September 2016, with the delay beyond the condonab
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
stified the impugned order. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of one month, after the period of two months specified in Section 35B. He further relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises – 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him as time barred. The order of the Original Authority dated 31 December 2015 was dispatched by RPAD and is shown by the post office records to have been delivered on 13 January 2016. Even though the appellant has procured another certified copy of the order on 26 August 2016, we are of the view that the date of service of the order-in-original is to be considered as 13 January 2016, since the order was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 37C (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. The Hon ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Singh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =