TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant had clearly contended that there was no issue or question of condonation of delay, as the starting point of limitation would be the date of communication of the order to the appellant and not the date on which the order under challenge was passed - The primary aspect, which has to be examined and answered, is the date on which the order-in-original dated 20th March, 2007 was communicated and served on the appellant and whether the stand of the appellant that this order was communicated and served for the first time on 25th February, 2013 was correct. It is case of the appellant that the appeal was not time barred. In view of the stand of the assessee, the Tribunal would have to decide whether or not the appeal preferred by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law:- Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in passing the order dated 2nd February, 2017 and dismissing the application for rectification on the ground that the Tribunal does not have any power of review and hear the appeal on merits notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had filed an application that there was error apparent on the face of the order dated 20th October, 2014. This order also records statement of the appellant that the present appeal may be treated as directed against the order dated 2nd February, 2017. Respondents were required to ascertain and file an affidavit whether the application enclosed as Annexure P-11 (page-222) was argued before the Tribunal when the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 20th October, 2014 and was dismissed, recording:- Vide interim order dated 833/2014 dated 15.9.2014, Revenue s objection as regards the appeal being barred by limitation was taken not of and the applicant was directed to explain the delay, matter was adjourned to today. On matter being called today, one Mr. Ritesh appeared and submitted that he is given his vakalatnama on behalf of Mr. P. Gupta another advocate today itself. 2. Learned DR strongly objects to the said request of the advocate who is not even an advocate on record inasmuch as he has not filed his vakalatnama. We note that there is no explanation at (sic) to whether inspite of period of one month and five days no COD application stand filed by the appellant. Inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in default. Due to heavy rain and traffic jam, counsel for the appellant could not to reach and appear in the matter on the first call. 10. This application filed on 4th August, 2015 was taken up for hearing on 10th February, 2016 and adjourned to 13th February, 2016 with a direction to the departmental representative to seek comments from the Commissioner and file a detailed date chart. The appellant was asked to file a better application for condonation of delay. 11. Pursuant to the said directions, the appellant filed a detailed application for condonation of delay on 9th June, 2016, with the prayer that the delay, if any, may be condoned. The appellant had referred to and relied on Sub-Section 3 to Section 129A and was asserting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken up for hearing before the Tribunal on 30th September, 2016. Application for condonation of delay was taken up for hearing with the appeal on, 24th February, 2017, when the following order was passed:- 5.After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, it appears that on 20.10.2014, this Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation alongwith the dismissal of stay petition. The RoA application No. 56198/2014, C/C0D/56199/2014 in C/57641/2013-CU was also dismissed by the Tribunal. 6. By following our earlier order (supra), we are unable to hear the application on merit. The Tribunal has no power to review its own order as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: (i) ITO vs. ITAT Another -229 ITR 651 (Pat. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso arise whether limitation period would commence or taken from the date of the impugned order, date on which the order was issued or sent by post or the date on which the order was served. The second aspect/issue is a question of law. Factual and legal aspects are interconnected. In case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the date of the order or the date of issue would be the starting point of limitation, then the Tribunal would have to examine and decide the question of condonation of delay. 15. We have deliberately not commented on merits and have refrained from going into factual matrix. This aspect has to be examined by the Tribunal. 16. In view of the aforesaid position, we partly allow the present appeal and answer the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
