TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch the appeals were barred by limitation of time by a period of more than 30 days after the normal period of 60 days that is stipulated in Section 35 of Central Excise, Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) has no authority to condone the delay beyond a period of 30 days, and therefore, the three appeals pertaining to the remand order dated 27.06.2019 of the Hon'ble CESTAT cannot be decided on merit. The remand order specifically directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh on limitation and therefore, I find that the appeals are barred by limitation of time in view of my factual findings as above. 14. I, therefore, dispose off the remand case accordingly, and dismiss all the three appeals bearing Nos. 454 to 456/CE/NOIDA/APPL/NOI/2019-20 (original appeals nos. 494 to 496/CE/APPL/M-II/N-1/2016-17) on the grounds of delay under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 2.1 Appellant filed three rebate claim which have been disposed of the original authority vide Order-in-Original Nos. 449-R/DC/N-V/2015-16 dated 18.03.2016, 450-R/DC/N-V/2015-16 dated 18.03.2016 and 451-R/DC/N-V/2015-16 dated 18.03.2016. 2.2 Aggrieved by the above three orders appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erused by the authorized representative of the appellant. 7. In order to do complete justice to the case, the concerned Range Superintendent was also made to be present on the date of hearing alongwith the original dispatch register pertaining to the case. The authorized representative was shown the relevant pages of the dispatch register pertaining to the entry no.276 to 280 in respect of OIO No.449-R/DC/N-V/2015-16 dated 18.03.2016, entry no. 281 to 285 pertaining to OIO No.450-R/DC/N-V/2015-16 dated 18.03.2016 and entry no.286 to 290 pertaining to OI0 No. 451-R/DC/N-V/2015- 16 dated 18.03.2016, the relevant portion of the dispatch register is as under: ....... From the factual information as recorded in the dispatch register, it is abundantly clear that the three impugned orders were actually collected from the concerned officer by the representative of the appellant on 18.03.2016 as the evidence of having received the order by the said representative was not disputed. 8. The authorized representative in her submission during the personal hearing contended that, while not disputing the evidence of the dispatch register, advocated that the meth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal all dated 18.03.2016. 4.3 The main contention of the appellant is that the method of tendering the orders was not proper and if there is any dispute on the issue the balance of convenience should go in favour of the appellant. I find that the similar contentions raised by the appellant in their appeal E/70106, 70107 & 70109/2019 have been rejected by coordinate bench of CESTAT vide final order A/71274-71276/2017-SM (BR) dated 27.06.2019 observing as follows: "2. It is seen that the appellant's claim of rebate was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order In-Original dated 02 December, 2015. Vide this order, a part of the claim was sanctioned and other part was rejected. Being aggrieved with that part of the order of the Assistant Commissioner vide which their rebate claim was rejected, the appellant filed 3(three) appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The Appellate Authority observed that the order stands passed on 02 December, 2015, the appellant has filed the appeals on 01 July, 2016 by showing the date of receipt of the order on 01 May, 2016. Accordingly, he took up the matter with the office of the Assistant Commissioner and calle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of limitation of 60 days starts running from the date of receipt of the impugned order. The same would in the present case would expire on or around 02 March, 2015. The appeal admittedly stands filed on 01 July, 2016 with a delay of 211 days. It is settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises V/s CCE, Jamshedpur reported as 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC)." 4.4 From the order in originals it is quite evident that the rebate claims filed by the appellant were partly allowed in favour of the appellant and the amount credited to their account. The observation to this effect in the Order in Original No 450-R/DC/N-V/2015-16 dated 18.03.2016 is reproduced below: "Accordingly E-payment Advice to Bank for credit of Rs 9,02,108/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Two Thousand One Hundred and Eight only) directly into the partys bank account through RTGS/NEFT facility is being sent." It is also observed that the order in original were in person received by employee/ authorized person of the appellant who had signed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y through its General Manager, tendering an unconditional apology for filing additional affidavit dated 21-11-2014 without verifying the detail factual position and seeking indulgence of the Court to withdraw the said additional affidavit dated 21-11-2014. The aforesaid facts are merely being recorded to indicate the manner in which the petitioner-company has sought to try and pass the blame on an employee in order to try and justify their admitted delay in filing of the appeal. 11. ...... 12 ...... 13. In this respect, before concluding the matter, it would also be most relevant to note herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), came to hold that "sufficient cause for explaining the delay is an expression which is found in various statute and it is essentially meant as adequate or enough". 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances, the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay of 244 days and the attempt made to cover up the delay by raising another matter, i.e. "a disciplinary action initiated against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 35 of the Act which reads as follows : "35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals). - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) [hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals)] within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order : Provided that 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. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner." 7. It is to be noted that the periods "sixty days" and "thirty days" have been substituted for "within three months" and "three months" by Act 14 of 2001, with effect from 11-5-2001. 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. I.T.C.'s case (supra) was rendered taking note of the peculiar background facts of 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." 4.9 In case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (DIED) BY L.Rs. & ORS [[2024] 4 S.C.R. 241], Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exer....