TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing has been held:- "Accordingly, the appeal No. 75-ST/APPL-MRT/MRT/202324 dated 21.12.2023 filed by M/s The U.P. Homeguard Commandant, Patel Nagar, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, 251001, is dismissed in above terms as being time barred. The Order-in- Original No. 63/ADC/MEERUT/2016 dated 30.05.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner, CGST the Commissionerate, Meerut is upheld." 2.1 We have heard the Authorised representative appearing for the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. 3.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 3.2 We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is with respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and has dismissed the same on this ground alone. 3.2 This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC)], wherein it has been held that Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone the delay beyond the 30 days in filing the appeal before him, relevant part of the said decision are reproduced bellow for ready reference:- "6. At this juncture, it is relevant to take 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. 3.4 In case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.)] Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 19. Arguendo, reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is noticed that the respondent had asserted that it was not aware about the passing of assessment order dated 21-6-2017 although it is admitted that the same was served on the authorised representative of the respondent on 22-6-2017. The date on which the respondent became aware about the order is not expressly stated either in the application for condonation of delay filed befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the writ petition has averred that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the order examines the cause set out by the respondent and concludes that the same was unsubstantiated by the respondent. That finding has not been examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order at all, but the High Court was more impressed by the fact that the respondent was in a position to offer some explanation about the discrepancies in respect of the volume of turnover and that the respondent had already deposited 12.5% of the additional amount in terms of the previous order passed by it. That reason can have no bearing on the justification for n....