TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted we find that the copy of the order was again provided to them under the cover of letter dated 30.04.2012. As such, even if the letter dated 30.04.2012 is taken as the relevant date the appeal filed in October, 2013 is barred by limitation. It is well settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of one month provided under the Act. Referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of normal period of limitation and he has no power to condone the delay. We find that the order impugned before him was issued by the Deputy Commissioner which was served on the appellant on 08.09.2010 but according to the appellant, the same was not received by them. They accordingly approached the Revenue for providing a copy of the letter dated 24.01.2019 which was provided to them by the offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of one month provided under the Act. Reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur -2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). 3. As such, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The same is accordingly upheld and appeal is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
