2018 (11) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....intendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal being time barred. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in Erection, Commissioning and Installation services and during the period from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to the Commissioner (A), is beyond the condonable period of 30 days as provided in Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, the Commissioner (A) by relying upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) dismissed the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal on maintainability because there was a delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. She further submitted that Commissioner (A) does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of 60 days, which is the time prescribed for filing the appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appell....