2012-ITS-2882-CESTAT-M/s. Patel Stationers Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI , Decision : 31.12..2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad
Appeal No. : E/927 of 2012
[Application No. E/S/1450 of 2012]
Arising out of : OIA No. SRP/27/VAPI/2012-13 dated 18.09.2012
Passed by : Commr. (Appeals) C. Excise & Customs, Vapi
For approval and signature :
Hon’ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Hon ble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)
Appellant (s) : M/s. Patel Stationers Pvt. Limited
Represented by : Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate
Respondent (s) : Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI
Represented by : Shri Manoj Kutty, A.R.
CORAM :
Hon’ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Hon ble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/ Decision : 31.12..2012
ORDER No. _____________ /WZB/AHD/2012
Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran;
This stay petition is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority with interest and amount of penalty imposed.
2. We take up the stay petition for disposal. On perusal of record, we find that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant only on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, we dispose of the stay petition and take up the appeal itself for disposal as the issue lies in a narrow compass.
3. After hearing the learned departmental representative and learned counsel, we find that the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee is that, they have not received the show cause notice nor they have replied to the show cause notice and nor they were granted any personal hearing in this matter.
4. We find that there is no dispute that the order in original dated 30.8.2010 was received by the assessee on 08.10.2010 for which they should have filed an appeal on or before 07.12.2010 and further, appeal could have been filed within 30 days by filing an application for condonation of delay. It is on record that appellant has filed appeal on 14.11.2011, almost after 13 months of receipt of the order in original. We are of the view that learned Commissioner does not have powers to condone the delay of more than 30 days, the statutory limit fixed for filing the appeal.
5. We do not find any merit in the appeal and is dismissed as devoid of merits.
