M\/s Linde India Ltd. (earlier BOC India Limited) Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax Jaipur
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 96 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 19-2-2019
Excise Appeal No. 51945 of 2018 – Final Order No. 50292\/2019
Central Excise
Shri Justice Dilip Gupta, President And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Sohrab Barariga, C.A. – for the appellant.
\nShri V.B. Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer. V. Padmanabhan :-
\nThe appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 56 (SJ) CE\/JPR\/2018 dated 28 February 2018. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various gases falling under Chapter 28 and 29 of the <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n as received on 26 August 2016 and the order-in-original was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by filing the appeal on September 19, 2016. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n eceived on 13 January 2016. However, he submitted that it was received by someone in the front desk who could not be identified. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Linde India Ltd. (earlier BOC India Limited) Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax JaipurCentral Excise2019 (3) TMI 96 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 19-2-2019Excise Appeal No. 51945 of 2018 – Final Order No. 50292\/2019Central ExciseShri Justice Dilip Gupta, President And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) … Continue reading “M\/s Linde India Ltd. (earlier BOC India Limited) Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax Jaipur”<\/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-17105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17105","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=17105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. 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 condonable period of 30 days in terms of Section 35 (1), he dismissed the appeal as time b<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Learned Departmental Representative justified 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.).
\n6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
\n7. 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 rec<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n