TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in early June 2016 that the Officers of the Respondents enquired of the Petitioner whether or not an Appeal had been filed from the Order dated 30th November 2015. This resulted in the Petitioner filing an Appeal on 11th June 2016 to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Both the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner's Appeal on the ground that there is no power in the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond the aggregate period of 90 days provided under Section 35 of the Act - This is not correct in view of the decision the Supreme Court in M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). This by upholding the view of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) that as the Appeal filed before it was not only beyond the normal period of 60 days but also beyond the further period of 30 days, which in the maximum delay it can condone for sufficient reasons. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 30th November 2015 the Additional Commissioner passed an order disallowing Cenvat credit and imposing penalty. This order dated 30th November 2015 was received by the Petitioner on 11th December 2015. Immediately on 14th December 2015, the Petitioners filed an Application to the Additional Commissioner seeking a rectification/review of the order dated 30th November 2015, as ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a demand. This grievance was sought to be addressed by filing on 14th December 2015 an rectification/review application before the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. We are informed that the above Application dated 14th December 2015 has not yet been disposed of. It was in early June 2016 that the Officers of the Respondents enquired of the Petitioner whether or not an Appeal had been filed from the Order dated 30th November 2015. This resulted in the Petitioner filing an Appeal on 11th June 2016 to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Both the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner's Appeal on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the applicability principle laid down in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the facts of this case. It is for the Petitioner to make out appropriate case before the Tribunal, which would be considered and disposed of by passing an appropriate order thereon. 11. We also note that the Petitioner's application dated 14th December 2015 for rectification/review made to Additional Commissioner of Central Excise has not yet been disposed of. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise is directed to dispose it within four weeks from today. Non disposal of application by Authority under the Act causes undue hardship to the litigants. 12. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
