TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioners have challenged order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT' for short) in following factual background: 2. The administrative authority had, after issuing showcause notice and hearing the petitioners, by its order in original dated 30.09.2009 confirmed duty demand of ₹ 7,08,594/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner rejected the same without entering into merits. 5. This order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, held and observed that the Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of six months. Therefore, Tribunal also would not have power to condone such delay occurred in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant and ensured that the appeal was filed. Counsel, therefore, submitted that technical reason of the appeal being beyond limitation should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right of the petitioners. 7. From the record, however, it clearly emerges that admittedly, the Commissioner has no power to entertain appeals which are presented beyond six months, even if the petitioners poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the Court has taken the view that in extraordinary circumstances, in such cases, the writ petition can be entertained. In the present case, however, we do not find any such justification. No strong grounds have been made out to demonstrate that the order passed by the adjudicating authority was wholly illegal or without jurisdiction. We would not be justified in allowing the petitioners to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
