TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iyan, Member (T) Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri AK . Madan, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Justice S.N. Jha, President (For the Bench)]. - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner dismissing the appellant's appeal summarily as time barred. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that were the appellate authority is of the opinion that the appeal is time barred and intends to dismiss the appeal as such, he is required to give opportunity of hearing, and since no such opportunity was given to the appellant in the instant case, the order is fit to be set-aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on the point of limitation. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Act the party is entitled to opportunity of hearing. It was also submitted that even where notice or copy of the order etc. is served by registered post there is no presumption that it was served on the person. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.-LB) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (T) 4. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act provides for the manner of service of decisions, orders, summons etc. It lays down that any decision or order etc. shall be served on the person for whom it is intended by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice or sending it by registered post wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner may extend the period upto thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of sixty days. The section does not confer any discretion on the Commissioner to further extend the period and condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the extended period of ninety days.[See the decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner - 2008 (221) E.L.T 163 (S.C.)]. The appeal in the instant case was filed after 228 days i.e. well beyond the extendable period and therefore, no meaningful purpose would have been served, or would be served even now if the Commissioner were to be directed to give opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. We find no scope for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
