TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 35 empowers Commissioner(Appeals) to condone the delay beyond 60 days on being satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting said appeal. But the extent of only 30 days of delay beyond said 60 days is statutorily provided to be condoned by the Commissioner(Appeals) - Since in the present matter the appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) was filed beyond 90 days th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery of service tax amounting to ₹ 5,24,815/- alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty. The original adjudicating authority vide the order No. 08 dated 01.07.2016 has confirmed the demand alongwith the interest and the penalty. Being aggrieved the appeal was filed. Commissioner(Appeals) vide the order under challenge i.e. bearing No. 619 dated 28.03.2018 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record as well as order under challenge, it is observed that the submissions on part of Department appear to be correct. Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order h as not touched the merits of the appeal rather has dismissed the same only on the ground of limitation, it being filed before him after the expiry of period of three months ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) which impresses that Commissioner (Appeals) has no discretion to condone the delay beyond a period of 90 days. The Commissioner Appeals was burdened with statutory mandate for not entertaining any Appeal which has been filed beyond a period of three months. Resultantly, I opine no infirmity in the Order under challenge. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [Dictated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
