TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that he had no power and jurisdiction to condone delay beyond period of 90 days. Held that - there was no reason to interfere impugned order. - ST/359 OF 2009 - A/806, S/644 & M/994/WZB/AHD./2010 - Dated:- 21-6-2010 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER R.S. Sarova for the Respondent. ORDER Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member - Nobody app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the appeal before him. The appellate authority has observed that he does not have powers and jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. He has relied upon the various decisions, as discussed in para 5.2 of his order : "5.2 The legal position on the above mentioned issue has been settled in the following decisions in respect of central excise that the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7) ELT. (ii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Navinon Ltd. v. UOI - 2008 (205) ELT 71 (Bom.) wherein it is held as under : "Appeal - Limitation - Commissioner (Appeals) office is neither a court nor has trappings thereof - He is an executive authority which acts quasijudicially while hearing appeals - Provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 so far as limitation period of appeal are concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no power to condone any delay of appeal in excess of thirty days prescribed under the proviso to section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act. The ratio of the above said decisions though given in relation to central excise cases are equally applicable to the present case as the provisions relating to appeal in central excise and in service tax are pari materia." 3. Inasmuch as the law is settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
