TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red a categorical finding that the fact that the appellant received the order in original on 17.09.2014 sufficiently establishes that the plea of the appellant that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015 was factually wrong. Once it is found that the appellant’s plea that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015 as false, the question of entertaining any alternative plea does not arise. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 241 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And Sri T. Amarnath Goud JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs.T.Vidya Rani For the Respondents : None JUDGMENT (Per the Hon ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This appeal by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the same was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation. The said order having been confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT ), the unsuccessful appellant has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard Mrs.T.Vidya Rani, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the record. 4. It is borne out from the record that while the original order was passed on 25.08.2014, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10.12.2015. It is not in dispute that the limitation for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is 30 days and the appellate authority is vested with the power to condone the delay of one month only. The appellant pleaded that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay beyond one month. 5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon this Court to interfere with the order of the CESTAT by stating that by hud-hud cyclone, the entire office records of the appellant were destroyed and that therefore, the CESTAT ought to have exercised its discretion by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission. 6. In the first place, the plea that the documents got misplaced in hud-hud cyclone runs contrary to the basic stand taken by the appellant that it received the order copy only on 26.10.2015. It is not the pleaded case of the appellant that it received the order copy on 17.09.2014 and that due to the said cyclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
