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>Appeals Dismissed Under Section 35B: Time-Barred Filing Upheld</h1> <h3>Shree Sai Shraddha Processors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur</h3> Shree Sai Shraddha Processors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur - TMI Issues:1. Dismissal of appeals as time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Contention regarding the service of adjudication orders on the appellant.3. Verification of service of adjudication orders by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.4. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur.5. Condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the prescribed period under the Act.Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals as time-barred:The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as time-barred under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stating they were filed beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the power to condone delays beyond the period prescribed by the Act. As the issue was settled by the Supreme Court, the appeals were taken up for hearing.Issue 2: Contention on service of adjudication orders:The appellant contended that there was no evidence to prove the service of adjudication orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order without providing any evidence regarding the service of the orders, despite the appellant's request for such evidence.Issue 3: Verification of service by Assistant Commissioner:Following a remand order by the Tribunal, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner verified the service of adjudication orders on the appellant. The verification revealed that the orders were received by the appellant's authorized signatory on specific dates, as confirmed by stamps. The appellant filed appeals several years after receiving the orders, leading to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay.Issue 4: Applicability of Supreme Court decision:The Tribunal found that the case at hand was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond the time prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944.Issue 5: Condonation of delay:Due to the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which limit the Commissioner (Appeals) from condoning delays beyond thirty days, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay, stay petitions, and appeals were all dismissed.This judgment clarifies the limitations on the Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed period under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It highlights the importance of providing evidence regarding the service of adjudication orders and emphasizes the binding nature of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar matters. The detailed verification process conducted by the Assistant Commissioner played a crucial role in determining the timeline of events and ultimately led to the dismissal of the appeals due to the delay in filing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
