2019 (7) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent No.2; (iii) Final Order dated 21.11.2017 passed by Tribunal." 3] After the Order-in-Original dated 10th March 2016 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 21st November 2017. 4]....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We may now proceed 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 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s time 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 demand in the present case was based upon the statement of the employees and the job workers, which hardly constitutes any positive evidence on basis of which the demand could not have been confirmed. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs failed to take into account the Notification No.214/ 86 CE dated 25th March, 1986 which provides the exemption to the job work in respect of goo....