M\/s. Hyundai Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd. Previously known as (M\/s. Automated Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1121 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 17-7-2018
E\/EH\/40400\/2018 and E\/41201\/2018 – Final Order No. 42027\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri K. Raju, Authorized Representative for the Appellant
\nShri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe above application for early hearing is filed by the appellant seeking to hear the appeal out-of-turn.
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri K. Raju, who is<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ndoned the delay and accepted the appeal. The appellant therefore seeks out of turn hearing of the appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Hyundai Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd. Previously known as (M\/s. Automated Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1121 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 17-7-2018E\/EH\/40400\/2018 and E\/41201\/2018 – Final Order No. 42027\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. Hyundai Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd. Previously known as (M\/s. Automated Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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 condone the delay only upto 30 days and the present appeal having been filed with a delay of 208 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ja<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n