TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Adherence to Statutory Time Limits in Appeals Upheld by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD Versus SHIVAM TEXTILES</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad allowed the Department's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order that admitted and disposed of ... Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation Issues: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) admitted and disposed of after the extended period; Entertaining an appeal beyond the permissible time limit; Misplacement of the order-in-original leading to a delay in filing the appeal.Analysis:1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad was filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) admitting and disposing of an appeal after the extended period. The Department contended that the order was received by the respondent before the permissible time limit, as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement received in the office of the Original Authority on 6-4-2006. The Department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to entertain the appeal on 24-11-2006, well beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 35.2. The respondent claimed that the order-in-original was received in a brown envelope by their clerk, misplaced, and later discovered on 3-10-2006. The respondent argued that since the service was only effectively made on 3-10-2006, their appeal filed on 24-11-2006 was within the permissible time limit. However, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the respondent did not dispute receiving the order before 6-4-2006. The Tribunal emphasized that misplacement by the respondent's clerk did not grant the Commissioner (Appeals) the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit.3. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in admitting the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit, as it contravened the provisions of Section 35. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's finding, suggesting the order was received only on 3-10-2006, was irrelevant and amounted to condoning the delay improperly. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstated the order of the Original Authority. The appeal by the Department was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and procedures in appeal processes.
TaxTMI 
