9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeal) against the Orders-in-Original no. (1) 31/ST/Ref/AC-D-III/13 dated 5/6/2013 relating to rejection of their refund claim for Rs. 5,54,597.77/- out of Rs. 6, 11, 214.77/- and (2) 32/ST/Ref/AC-D-III/13 relating to rejection of their refund claim for Rs. 2,68,965.08/- out of Rs. 11,88,240.08/-. The claims were rejected as claims were not filed within the stipulated time limit despite Orders-in-Original were handed over to their representative under the Provision of Section 85. Section 85 is reproduced: Section 85. Appeals to the [Commissioner] of Central Excise (Appeals).- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on record by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that Superintendent Tax Range XXI, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Division III, Kanpur intimated by his office letter C. No. V (30)413/ST/Misc/R-XXI/D-III/12/Pt/6311 dated 03/09/213 that both the above said orders-in-original were received in person on 26/06/2013 by the appellants from the receipt section of the Range Office as is evident from the respective entry in the Letter Despatch Register, copy of the letter was extracted in the order itself. 5. Heard both sides and gone through the records. It is observed that both Orders-in-Original as referred above have duly been served on the representative of the Company. I am not convinced with the pleadings that orders should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original appealed against in declaring it in the form of appeal so as to show the filing of appeal within the prescribed time limit of two months. 6. From the above, it is observed that their appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (appeal) on the ground of limitation as appeals should have been filed on 25/08/2013 whereas those were filed late, i.e., on 27/08/2013. There has been misrepresentation on the fact of date of receipt of Orders-in-Original. Commissioner (appeal) also held that no reason for late filing of the appeals was brought on record by the appellants. No specific request for condonation of delay was made. Even issue of condonation of delay was not looked into by the Commissioner (appeal) as in the main portion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
