2019 (7) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Final Order dated 08.01.2018 passed by Tribunal." 3] After the order-in-original dated 8th January, 2018 was made by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Division-II, under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (formerly, Central Excise Act, 1944), the Petitioner instituted appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, (Appeals-III). However, this appeal was instituted beyond period of 90 days, i.e., beyond the period of maximum extendable period by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority by order dated 25th May 2017 dismissed the same as time barred. This dismissal was upheld by the Tribunal by its order dated 8th January, 2018. 4] Insofar as the orders da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to answer the question (1) Question No.1 is answered in negative by observing that the limitation provided under Section 35 of the Act cannot be condoned in filing the appeal beyond the period of 30 days as provided by the proviso nor the appeal can be filed beyond the period of 90 days. (2) The second question is answered in negative to the extent that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (3) On the third question, the answer is in affirmative, but with the clarification that (A) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be preferred for challenging the order passed by the original adjudicating authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... barred, be it by Appellate Authority or Tribunal in the event he chose to invoke such appellate remedy. On the scope of judicial review in such matters, the Full Bench has in fact followed the ruling of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 9] Mr. Prabhakar submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs failed to consider the submissions that the Petitioner has taken the Cenvat Credit against the Bill of Entry No. 6495990 dated 9th April, 2012. However, due to clerical mistake, number and date of this Bill of Entry was not correctly reflected. He submits that Assistant Commissioner was duty bound to furnish the correct facts from record and hold that there was n....