TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the order - Commissioner (Appeals) could not have entertained the appeal after the expiry of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copies of the orders by the Managing Partner of the appellants - Decided against the assessee - ST/640 TO 642 OF 2010 - 1325 TO 1327 OF 2010 - Dated:- 20-10-2010 - JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, P. KARTHIKEYAN, JJ. ORDER Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President - These appeals are being heard in terms of the order passed today in Stay Petition Nos. ST/St/374 to 376/2010. 2. We have heard the ld. Advocate for the appellants and DR for the respondent. Since common question of law arises in all these matters, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the family members till the date 22-9-2009. It was only on 22-9-2010 when a briefcase which belonged to the deceased Managing Partner was opened, it was revealed to the appellants that he was served with the copies of the said orders. Therefore, the appellants took the necessary steps to prepare the appeals and filed the same before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. It is to be noted that the order dated 27-2-2009 related to the period October, 2005 to September, 2007 and the demand confirmed was Rs. 27,58,901. The order dated 29-12-2008 was in relation to the period from January, 2005 to December, 2006 and demand confirmed was Rs. 6,14,300. The order dated 27-1-2009 related to the period from January, 2007 to September, 2007 and confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) could not have held that the appeals were filed beyond the period of 6 months. 8. The DR, on the other hand placing reliance in the decision in the matter of Singh Enterprises v. CCE [Appeal (Civil) 5949 of 2007, dated 14-12-2007], Navinon Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 (205) ELT 71 (Bom.) and CC CE v. Hongo India (P.) Ltd. 2009 (236) ELT 417(SC), submitted that the provision of law clearly requires the aggrieved party to file the appeal against the order passed by the lower authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and undisputedly in the case in hand, the copies of the orders were received by the Managing Partner of the appellants on 15-1-2009, 7-2-2009 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory provisions and cannot exceed the powers bestowed upon it under the said provisions of law. Law in this regard is well settled. The statutory authorities created under a statute have to function within the parameters prescribed under such statute and cannot travel beyond the limits prescribed under the same. Bearing in mind the same, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 11. As far as section 16 of the Limitation Act is concerned, sub-section (1) thereof provides that where a person who would, if he were living, have a right to institute a suit or make an application dies before the right accrues, or where a right to institute a suit or make an application accrues only on the death ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the Central Excise Act, 1944, had held that it is a self contained code providing remedies for all contingencies that would arise in the administration of the provisions of the Act, viz., the Act provides to enforce the rights, forum is provided, procedure is prescribed, remedies including appeals and remedies are provided, penalties are indicated for non-compliance of the provisions as well as the orders passed under the provisions of the Act. Further period of limitation is also specifically prescribed for filing the returns, appeals, revisions, etc. . With this ruling, the contention on behalf of the assessee that the power to condone the delay even beyond the extended period prescribed under the Act should be read in favour of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned under the relevant statute, it commences from the day when aggrieved party receives the copy of the order. It will thereafter survive for the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. Survival of the right itself does not amount to accrual of right. Survival follows the accrual. Being so, the expression accrual of right used in section 16 cannot be equated with the survival of the right already accrued on receipt of the copy of the order. 15. Besides, the Apex Court in Hongo India (P.) Ltd. s case (supra) had clearly held thus, 20. ......... .......... ............. In our considered view, that even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
