TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty Commissioner] for the reason that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation contemplated under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act], has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) mentions that the order dated 08.02.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was received by the appellant on 09.01.2015 but the appeal was filed on 05.01.2016. 3. The order sheets revels that though the matter was listed on number of occasions but adjournment was sought. Today, when the matter has been called out no one has appeared to press the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, being decided on merits. 4. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department has stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be presented within a further period of thirty days." 7. It would seen from the aforesaid provision that an appeal can be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. Thus, at best the delay of thirty days beyond the stipulated limit of sixty days in filing the appeal by can be condoned, provided of course that the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision 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 appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case. In that case there was no law declared by this Court that even though the Statute prescribed a particular period of limitation, this Court can direct condonation. That would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. In any event, the causes shown for condonation have no acceptable value. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. There will be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) 9. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises emphasises that the language to the proviso to section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act makes it clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of thirty days afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month." 8. A perusal of sub-section (3A) of Section 85 clearly indicates that an appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the order of the adjudicating authority in relation to Service Tax, interest or penalty. It further provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. The discretion of the Commissioner to condone the delay is, therefore, circumscribed by the condition set out in proviso and the delay can be condoned only if t....