Kothari Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta |
| Oct-05-2001 |
| Kothari Metals Ltd. |
| Commissioner of Customs, |
1. the commissioner (appeals) vide his impugned order has rejected the appeal on the ground that the same has been filed after expiry of six months from the date of receipt of the order and as per the provisions of section 128 of the customs act, 1962, the condonation of such delay is beyond the statutory power of commissioner (appeals).2. after hearing shri s.n. sinha mahapatra, ld. advocate for the appellants and shri a.k. mondal, ld. jdr for the revenue, i fully agree with the commissioner's (appeals) observations. he has been given the statutory power to condone the delay upto three months after the expiry of normal period of limitation, as per the provisions of section 128.the tribunal in the case of divisional engineer, telecom v.commissioner of customs, chennai reported in 2001 (46) rlt 318 (cegat-che.) has held that such rejection by the commissioner (appeals) was to be upheld. the tribunal has taken into account the precedent decision of the hon'ble supreme court as also by the larger bench of the tribunal. in view of the foregoing, i do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has rejected the appeal on the ground that the same has been filed after expiry of six months from the date of receipt of the order and as per the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the condonation of such delay is beyond the statutory power of Commissioner (Appeals).
2. After hearing Shri S.N. Sinha Mahapatra, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. JDR for the Revenue, I fully agree with the Commissioner's (Appeals) observations. He has been given the statutory power to condone the delay upto three months after the expiry of normal period of limitation, as per the provisions of Section 128.
The Tribunal in the case of Divisional Engineer, Telecom v.Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2001 (46) RLT 318 (CEGAT-Che.) has held that such rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be upheld. The Tribunal has taken into account the precedent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.