M\/s. Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Indore
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 1171 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 11-2-2019
Excise Appeal No. E\/53354\/2018-EX [SM] – Final Order No. 50275 \/2019
Central Excise
HON'BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )
\nFor the Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent: Mr. K. Poddar, D.R.
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nPresent is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.186 dated 28.06.2018. In response to the notice of this appeal to the appellant, Ms. Priyanka Goel, ld. Advocate has appeared as the proxy Counsel on behalf of the appellant and placed on record written request about the disposal of this appeal on the basis of grounds of a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of Rs. 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n bmitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date 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. T<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, IndoreCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 1171 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 11-2-2019Excise Appeal No. E\/53354\/2018-EX [SM] – Final Order No. 50275 \/2019Central ExciseHON'BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) For the Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate For the Respondent: … Continue reading “M\/s. Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Indore”<\/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-16912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16912","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=16912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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. I<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n