GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 15 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2015 (12) TMI 15 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Condonation of delay - Power of Commissioner to condone delay beyond the period of 1 month - Held that:- As per the postal document, the impugned order stands delivered to the appellant on 12.1.2013. Not only the signature of the recipient person stands appended on the said postal receipt but the seal of the company is also put on the same, showing thereby the said order stands received by an authorized person of the company. On the contrary, the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion. As such, we conclude that the order-in-original having been received by the appellant on 12.1.2013, the appeal filed on 9.10.2013 is admittedly beyond the normal period of limitation and also beyond the condonable period of one month which the Commissioner (Appeals) is rested with power - Condonation denied. - ST/Stay/21911/2014 in ST/21725/2014-DB - Final Order No. 21667 / 2015 - Dated:- 17-7-2015 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok Kumar Arya, Technical Member Mr. N. Ana .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity was received by the appellant on 12.1.2013. As such, the normal period of limitation of two months for filing the appeal against the said order stands expired on or around 12.3.2013 whereas the appeal has been filed by the appellant on 9.10.2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) has further held that inasmuch as he has the powers to condone only the delay of one month, in terms of the provisions of sub-section 3A of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal is barred by limitation. 2. After .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner. 3. Revenue has produced the above postal receipt showing the delivery of the order to the appellant on 12.1.2013 under the official stamp of the company and signature of the recipient. The appellant is not disputing the factum of the said postal receipt showing receipt of the order on 12.1.2013 but submits that the same was not delivered to a responsible person of the company. It is further contention of learned advocate that the order should have been sent by Registered AD, as held by v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ipt of the order, the various High Court had held that the correct mode of despatch in terms of Section 33 (3) of the Act, is sending the order by Registered A.D. However, the said declaration of the law will not apply to the facts of the present case when there is no dispute about receipt of the order sent under speed post. Learned A.R. also relies upon the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version