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>Appeal dismissed due to delay beyond 90-day limit from order receipt. Tribunal upholds decision.</h1> <h3>M/s Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-II</h3> The appeal was dismissed for being filed beyond the 90-day limit from the receipt of the Order-in-Original. The delay in filing the appeal exceeded the ... Maintainability of appeal - delay in filing appeal beyond the 90 days of receipt of the Order-in-Original - jurisdiction of first appellate authority - Held that: - the first appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the 30 days after the 60 days time which was given for filing the appeal before first appellate authority as per the provisions of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed. Issues: Appeal dismissed for filing belatedly, Request for adjournment dismissed, Commissioner (Appeals) power to condone delayIssue 1: Appeal dismissed for filing belatedlyThe appellant failed to appear during the hearing, and a request for adjournment by an advocate not authorized in the matter was dismissed. The Tribunal proceeded with the Stay Petition and observed that the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority for being filed beyond the 90-day limit from the receipt of the Order-in-Original. The Departmental Representative highlighted this aspect, referring to Para 3 of the impugned order. The Tribunal, after perusing the records, concurred with the finding that the appeal was indeed filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had noted the delay in filing the appeal and the limitations under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding condonation of delay. As the delay exceeded the permissible limit, the appeal was deemed liable for dismissal.Issue 2: Request for adjournment dismissedDuring the proceedings, no representation was made on behalf of the appellant. A fax seeking adjournment from an advocate not authorized in the matter was produced. However, as there was no Vakalatnama of the said advocate in the case, the application for adjournment was dismissed. Despite the absence of representation, the Tribunal proceeded with the Stay Petition and the appeal's disposal.Issue 3: Commissioner (Appeals) power to condone delayThe Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the appeal's delay and the provisions under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the condonation of delay. It was noted that the delay exceeded the permissible limit for condonation. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's findings that the delay was beyond the Commissioner's power to condone. As the appellant did not challenge these factual findings, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the appeal was liable for summary rejection. Consequently, both the appeal and the Stay Petition were dismissed by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
