CESTAT dismisses Excise Appeal Citing no Discretion to Condone Delay beyond 30 Days [Read Order]
Considering that the CESTAT has no authority to condone the delay beyond the limit, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal
![CESTAT dismisses Excise Appeal Citing no Discretion to Condone Delay beyond 30 Days [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/CESTAT-CESTAT-Mumbai-CESTAT-Dismisses-Excise-Appeal-Customs-Excise-and-Service-Tax-Appellate-Tribunal-Condone-Delay-CESTAT-News-CESTAT-Updates-taxscan.jpg "CESTAT dismisses Excise Appeal Citing no Discretion to Condone Delay beyond 30 Days [Read Order]")
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) dismissed the Excise appeal on the ground that it has no discretion to condone the delay beyond the 30-day grace period. Base Corporation Ltd., the appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune. The original order imposed a duty liability of Rs.11,26,541 on...
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) dismissed the Excise appeal on the ground that it has no discretion to condone the delay beyond the 30-day grace period.
Base Corporation Ltd., the appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Pune. The original order imposed a duty liability of Rs.11,26,541 on the appellant company under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with interest under Section 11AA.
Aggrieved by the original order, the appellant appealed before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). However, the appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the permissible time limit specified in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.
Get a Copy of Unlock Expertise in Tax Audits under Section 44AB - Enroll Now, Click here
The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur to uphold the dismissal on grounds of limitation.
The appellant appealed the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals)’s order before the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT.
The two-member bench C J Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) noted that the appellant was not represented during the hearing and that the company was no longer functioning at its registered place of business.
Given that this appeal had been pending for a long time with no representation from the appellant, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the case.
Get a Copy of Unlock Expertise in Tax Audits under Section 44AB - Enroll Now, Click here
The tribunal referred the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Re Singh Enterprises which established that appeals must be filed within 60 days, with a maximum 30-day grace period for condonation. Neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor CESTAT can condone delays beyond this 90-day limit.
Referring to the Supreme Court case, the tribunal dismissed the appeal stating that it did not have the authority to condone the delay beyond the period permitted by law. Therefore, the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
