TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted that the Order-in-Appeal No.159-160-STR- JDR-2017 dated 18.10.2017 was challenged vide the appeal Nos.ST/50739/2018 & ST/50713/2018 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal before him in limini by taking the view that appeal before him was filed after a period of 3 months and 10 days. The applicant further submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal while disposing of both the said appeals had taken the view that Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay beyond three months as the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of relevant order and statutorily he can condone a further delay of 30 days on showing a sufficient cause. 2. The ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2013 was challenged. The same was acknowledged to be received by the appellant on 23.06.2014. However, the appeal was filed on 02.12.2014 though it was to be filed on or before 22.08.2014 thereby causing a delay of 3 months and 10 days in filing the same before Commissioner (Appeals). We observe that the applicant had, therefore, filed an application praying for condonation of delay before Commissioner (Appeals) and order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in respect of the said application praying for condonation of delay. In view of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, delay was not condoned. As a result where of the appeal could not have sustained. It was this order that that was assailed before this Tribunal and Tribunal also while relying upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eserves to be dismissed which we direct. There will be no order as to costs." As a result, we do not find any infirmity in the said order, which is not at all on merits. 4. The ground of death as taken is also not sufficient in explaining the impugned delay as admittedly the death of proprietor of appellant occurred during the pendency of proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals). There is no doubt about the fact that no demand can be confirmed and no recovery proceedings can be initiated against a dead person, as has already been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabina Abraham reported in 2015 (322) ELT 372 and has been relied upon by Tribunal Chandigarh in the case of M.K. Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandi....