Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (1) TMI 1345

der 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 CESTAT rendered 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 d .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

llowing the procedure, an order was passed on 25.08.2014 by the competent authority. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam on 10.12.2015. The said appeal was dismissed on the 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 10.1 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

to the appellant. The CESTAT also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) in support of its conclusion that the appellate authority has no power to condone the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||