Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Vikram Hospital Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Mysore

2017 (12) TMI 1383 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - condonation of delay of 48 days - Held that: - there is no infirmity in the impugned order because as per Section 85(3A), the appeal before the Commissioner (A) has to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order - reliance placed in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it was made clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibunal to reconsider the matter in the light of Section 85(3A) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Today, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AR. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.7.2014 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal being not maintainable as the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant are running a multispecialty hospital in Mysore. The ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ected service tax from 16.7.2010 to 31.8.2010. After the completion of verification process, a show-cause notice was issued demanding penalty to the extent of ₹ 90,000/- under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 and ₹ 9,09,520/- under Rule 15(3) of the CCR, 2004. Thereafter Additional Commissioner vide OIO dated 22.10.2013 confirmed the demand and penalty as proposed in the show-cause notice. The payment of duty along with interest was paid before the issue of show-cause no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the threshold stage itself citing the reason that the delay was in excess of 30 days which is beyond the condonable limit. The learned Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has considered the grounds seeking condonation of delay and has come to the conclusion that the reasons for seeking the condonation of delay of 48 days is not justified and therefore, the learned Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iled within three months from the date of communication of the order and if he takes the time of three months then there was only a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and condonation was sought by giving reasons for the delay which was not considered by the Commissioner (A). 6. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that as per statutory provisions, 60 days period is prescribed in filing the appeal and the Commissioner (A) has got the power to condone the delay up to 30 days and after 30 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing of the period of filing appeal of three months in preamble of the adjudication order cannot override the statutory time limit of filing the appeal. In support of this submission, he relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Raghav Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise: 2008 (231) ELT 298 (Tri.-Del.) wherein in para 2, the Tribunal has observed as under: 2. The Commissioner has observed that the appellant filed the appeal beyond 31 days from the statutory .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Noida reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) = 2008 (85) RLT 523 (CESTAT.-Del.) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay of more than 30 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (Supra). We find that the preamble of the adjudication order cannot override the statutory time limit of filing the appeal. Therefore, we do not find any merit in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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