TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e similar ground - No reason to interfere with order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.ST/S/40833/2014 & ST/40611/2014 - FINAL ORDER No.40634/2014 - Dated:- 25-9-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. V. Pramila, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. As the issue lies on a narrow compass, after disposing the stay application we take up the appeal for hearing. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1994. It is submitted that the Tribunal consistently held that on the plea of wrong mentioning of period of filing appeal of three months in preamble of adjudication order, delay cannot be condoned by overriding the statutory limit of filing the appeal. He relies upon the following decisions :- (1) Raghav Industries Vs CC Amritsar - 2008 (231) ELT 298 (Tri.-Del.) (2) Sagar Enterprises Vs CC Tuticorin 2009 (247) ELT 410 (Tri.-Chennai) 5. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) held as under :- 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiry of 30 days period. The Supreme Court clearly held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay after expiry of 30 days period as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. We agree with the submission of the Revenue that there is no power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay. The wrong mentioning of the period of limitation in the preamble cannot override the statutory provision. We also notice that the Tribunal in the case of Raghav Industries (supra) and Sagar Enterprises (supra) dismissed the appeal on the similar ground. 6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
