TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad, Regional Bench - Court No.1, does not reveal that the case involves any substantial question of law - there are no merit in the instant appeal - appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 18 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2020 - Biswanath Somadder And Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. For the Appellant : Vinayak Mithal For the Respondent : Ashok Singh ORDER This Central Excise Appeal, under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is in respect of a judgment and order dated 27th June, 2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, Regional Bench - Court No.1. For convenience, the impugned judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 April, 2015 itself, thus establishing beyond doubt that the order impugned before him was handed over to the appellant on 02 December, 2015. As such he observed that there was delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before him, for which he has no powers to condone. 4. Learned advocate, Ms. Anshika Agarwal appearing for the appellant draws my attention to the dispatch register produced on record showing the signatures of the appellant's representative. She submits that they are not disputing that the said signature are of the appellant's representative only but submits that the same were for receipt of the cheque but not for receipt of the Order-In-Original. As such she submits that the conclusion of the Authorities below th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yond the period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises V/s CCE, Jamshedpur reported as 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC). 8. Inasmuch as the delay in the present appeals in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was to the extent of 211 days, I am of the view that Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar. No infirmity can be found in the order. Accordingly, all the 3(three) appeals filed by the appellant are rejected. 9. Miscellaneous applications also gets disposed of. Relevant portion of section 35-G, being section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is required to be noticed and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
