TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule. The authorization referred to in Rule 8 is a normal authorization done by appellant or respondent as the said Rule applies not only to Revenue also but to the assessees. Thus, the words duly authorized appearing in Rule 8 are not with reference to Section 35B(2). In the instant case, the appeal was filed within time and there was only delay in rectification of defect pointed out by the Registry. Even otherwise, the primary objection of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent regarding the condonation of delay application being signed by an officer not authorized by Committee of Commissioners is misplaced as the requirement of filing of appeal under Section 35B is only for filing the appeals and not for other miscellaneous applications - Since there is no delay in filing the appeal, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed as infructuous. Appeals admitted. - ST/COD/10010-10011/2019-DB in Appeal Nos. ST/10711 & 10710/2015 - Misc. Order Nos. M/10327-10328/2019-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 21-6-2019 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T) Shri T.G. Rathod, Joint Commissioner (AR), for the Appellant. Shri P.D. Rachchh, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals file are required to be filed in quadruplicate. Therefore, you are hereby directed to remove the above-mentioned defect(s) on or before 20-4-2015. The above defect memo was issued as the impugned order was passed disposing three different orders-in-original. Consequently, against the same impugned order, three appeals were required to be filed. Therefore, in response to defect memo issued by Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, Revenue filed two more appeals were filed on 17-4-2015 along with these applications for condonation of delay of 23 days from 28-3-2015 to 19-4-2015. Ld. AR pointed out that the defect memo dated 26-3-2015 had directed to remove the defect on or before 20-4-2015 and the defect was removed by filing two additional appeals on 17-4-2015. He argued that there was no delay in filing of appeal. 3. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that impugned order was passed in respect of three orders-in-original as follows :- Sr. No. Appeal No. OIO No. Period (for which refund claim pertained to) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling two appeals and therefore, applications for condonation of delay were asked. The present applications for condonation have been filed in response to observations of the Bench on 17-12-2018. 6. In the above background, now we examine the issues raised by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that application for condonation of delay has been signed by the Commissioner, Central GST, Bhavnagar. He argued that Committee of Commissioners had authorized only the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Bhavnagar to file appeal and there was no authorization given to the Commissioner, Central GST, Bhavnagar. He argued that the post of Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Bhavnagar is no longer exists and thus nobody can file application for condonation of delay. He argued that since nobody can file application for condonation of delay, the appeals cannot be admitted. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of CCE ST, Bhubneshwar v. Ballarpur Industries Limited (supra) wherein the following has been observed:- 13. From the foregoing orders, it appears that the impugned order in this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicate to the Collector of Central Excise, or, as the case may be, the other party preferring the appeal. (4) . . (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. It is seen that in terms of Section 35B(2), the authorization of Committee of Commissioners has authorized only for filing appeal before the CESTAT. It is not necessary to obtain approval or sanction of Committee of Commissioners for filing each and every miscellaneous application by Revenue. The perusal of Section 35B(5) shows that the Appellate Tribunal has powers to admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CC (Imports), Chennai v. Archean Granites Pvt. Limited - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 290 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein this Tribunal observed as under :- 4. Apart from the fact that there is no authorization to file the application for condonation of delay, the reason given for the delay is highly unsatisfactory. I find that the tower appellate authority has asked the original authority to hear the appellants and pass a speaking order. Therefore, it is not obvious how the case is sensitive in nature requiring more time to consider filing an appeal. Further, in a similar issue, in the case of CC (Port), Kolkata v. Simplex Engineering Pvt. Limited - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 390 (Tri.-Kolkata) the Tribunal observed as under :- 4. Further we also find that even the revised COD application has been signed by an officer of the rank of Dy. Commissioner but we could not find any authorization in his name to file the application. Further when the original COD application had been filed in January, 2010 Shri Shekhar Kumar Bose had been authorized by name by both the Commissioners. We do not know why this procedure was not adopted subsequently. The per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
