Case Law Details

Case Name : Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Final Order No. ST/A/477 of 2012-CUs
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/06/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (1011) CESTAT Delhi (324)

CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd.

V/s.

Commissioner of Central Excise

FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/477 of 2012-CUs

STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/729 of 2012-cus

ST/STAY/1813 of 2012

APPEAL NO. ST/752 of 2012

JUNE 18, 2012

ORDER

Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member

After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we proceed to decide the appeal itself as the issue stands covered against the appellant by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar by observing that he has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant portion:

“On going through the case records of the appeal as well as submissions made at the time of personal hearing, it is observed that first of all the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal must be decided before deciding the stay application and the appeal. The appellant has contested that delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to correspondence with the corporate office for legal advice as to whether or not an appeal is to be filed. No other ground was taken. The appellant further contested though the order was received on 13.6.2011 but the appeal has been filed on 24.10.2011 thus though the appeal period of 90 days has expired on 10.9.2011, yet the application for condonation of delay may be allowed. I find that the above submission of the appellant is not plausible one for allowing the petition for condonation of delay as it was not a matter beyond the control of the appellant and therefore, the appellant could have filed the appeal in time. Thus I reject the petition for condonation of delay holding that the appeal is time-barred.”

3. We find that the issue is no more resintegra. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (189) ETL A-113 (SC) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. We also refer to a listed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Mechanical Works vide which Delhi High Court judgement was upheld.

4. Inasmuch as, law is declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there is no dispute about the date of receipt of the impugned order and the fact of delay beyond the period 90 days, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. Stay petition also gets disposed of.

NF

More Under Excise Duty

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031