2019 (8) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax assessed as per the order dated 31.07.2012, has been paid, excluding the penalty and other liabilities imposed under the aforesaid order. 3. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT) has dismissed the appeal preferred under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 04.08.2014, challenging the orders dated 31.07.2012, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur on the ground that it was not filed within the period of limitation, and that there was no power to condone delay caused in filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the matter, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Singh Enterprises vrs. Commissioner of Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... upon a decision of Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in case of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. .vrs. Union of India and ors (AIR 2015 Guj 97). In the said decision, the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court has considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal, as barred by limitation. In paragraph no.31 of the said decision, the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court has answered the question as under : "31. 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 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules or procedure or has acted in violation of principles of natural justice. According to her, the service tax assessed was Rs. 3,61,386/and the order of the Assessing Authority itself indicates that an amount of Rs. 3,06,986/was paid on 01.10.2010. Remaining balance of Rs. 54,000/is paid by petitioners to respondents during the pendency of this petition. In such a situation, according to her, there was no propriety and justification for the Authority concern to pass an order imposing penalty and other statutory liabilities. 9. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Assessing Authority. The relevant portion is contained in paragraph no.6.3, which is reproduced as below : "6.3. From the foregoing, it appears tha....