TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) in excess of one month. The limitation laid down in the law is sacrosanct and courts and more so Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal who are creatures of statute cannot go beyond it. Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 30500 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER No. 30075/2022 - Dated:- 27-7-2022 - MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri K. Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate. Present for the Respondent: Shri Hanuma Prasad, Authorized Representative ORDER M/s. Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt [ Appellant ] filed this appeal assailing order in appeal dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs (Appeals) Guntur, whereby he rejected the appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order of the original authority. 4. Learned counsel prays that the delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) may be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide it on merits. He relies on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bachina Srinivas vs Commissioner of Customs [ 2020 (2) TMI 231- Andhra Pradesh High Court ] in which a delay of 1164 days in filing the appeal was not condoned by the Tribunal. On appeal, the High Court condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a decision. He also asserts that in M/s Rosa Impex Private Limited in appeal No. ST/86983/2019 the learned single member of the Western Bench of this Tribunal passed FINAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths by Act 14 of 2001, with effect from 11-5-2001. 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act ) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. I.T.C. s case (supra) was rendered taking note of the peculiar background facts of the case. In that case there was no law declared by this Court that even though the Statute prescribed a particular period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing satisfied with the explanation for the delay, dismissed the appeal. On appeal, the High Court condoned the delay and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide. Thus, it was only a question of whether the delay was satisfactorily explained or otherwise but there is no statutory limitation on how much delay can be condoned under section 35 G. 9. The order of the Tribunal in the Rosa Impex Private Limited being contrary to the specific legal provisions under Section 35, and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises is per incuriam and I cannot follow it. 10. For all the above reasons, the impugned is correct and legal and needs to be upheld and I do so. 11. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
