TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a few days to deliver the letters. 7. Since, the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay of one month only and the delay in the instant case is much beyond this time limit, I, thus, find, after taking into account the aforesaid facts and the judicial pronouncement, that the appeal filed by the appellant beyond the prescribed time limit, is time barred and as such, is liable for dismissal." 2.1 None appeared despite notice nor has any request for adjournment been received. As the issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass the matter is taken into consideration on the basis of records and after hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Revenue. 2.2 I have heard Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. 3.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 3.2 I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is with respect of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case the appeal has been filed as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after more than the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....note of 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 condon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was immediately 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." 3.3 In case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. [Order dated 08.04.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 Of 2018] after considering the past precedence Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 righ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eposited on 12-9-2017 for and on behalf of respondent, without filing an appeal and without any demur - after the expiry of statutory period of maximum 60 days, prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. Not only that, the respondent filed a formal application under Rule 60 of the 2005 Rules on 8-5-2018 and pursued the same in appeal, which was rejected on 17-8-2018. Furthermore, the appeal in question against the assessment order came to be filed only on 24-9-2018 without disclosing the date on which the respondent in fact became aware about the existence of the assessment order dated 21-6-2017. On the other hand, in the affidavit of Mr. Sreedhar Routh, Site Director of the respondent-company (filed in support of the application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority), it is stated that the company became aware about the irregularities committed by its erring official (Mr. P. Sriram Murthy) in the month of July, 2018, which pre-supposes that the respondent must have become aware about the assessment order, at least in July, 2018. In the same affidavit, it is asserted that the respondent-company was not aware about the assessment order, as it was not brought to i....