TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the manufacture of Chewing Tobacco. It has been alleged that the appellants during the period 01.11.1996 to 07.06.2001, cleared the branded Chewing Tobacco in the guise of ubranded Chewing Tobacco without payment of duty. Appellant No.1 filed Appeal No.E/213/2011, against the demand of duty of Rs.48,74,828/- under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 interest under Section 11AB of the said Act, penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the said Act and another penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under erstwhile Rule 173Q and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appellant No.2 filed Appeal Nos.E/214 & 215/2011 against a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the Firm under Rule 209A & Rule 26 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) on 28.01.2010. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that it was beyond the statutory period under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to Sr. Counsel, the appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) is as per the direction of the Tribunal's Order dated 16.12.2009. He also submits that miscellaneous application was filed before the Tribunal on 20.04.2009 which is well within the stipulated period. Hence, the appeal cannot be dismissed as time-barred. He also submits that in this case, it is on the face of record apparent that the demand was confirmed without supplying of the documents and total miscarriage of justice. He also drew the attention of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Adjudicating authority also observed at para 24 of the said Order No.3/JC/CE/09 that the adjudication proceeding was initiated only on the basis of documents available with the department and copies of which have been supplied to the department. It is also observed that the appellant wilfully protracted the proceeding on one pretext or the other. We find that after the de novo adjudication order was passed, the appellants did not approach to the Commissioner (Appeals) as provided under Section 35(1) of the Act. The appellants filed miscellaneous application before the Tribunal. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the Tribunal's Misc. Order dated 16.12.2009 is reproduced herein below:- "8. Under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by the order may appeal against the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). It is noted that the Tribunal has not given any observation on condonation of delay of filing of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the appeal beyond the stipulated period. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced herein below:- "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 upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepte....