ANAND STEEL ROLLING WORKS PVT. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. Since the issue involved is in a narrow campus, we take up the appeal itself after waiving the requirement for predeposit. None appeared on behalf of the applicant/appellant.

(2.) HEARD the learned SDR.

(3.) LEARNED Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the following grounds: On perusal of the records, it is observed that Order -in -Original dated 17.11.2003 was issued on 17.11.03 which was received by the appellants on 21.11.2003 and appeal was filed on 23.3.2004. As per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by Central Excise Officer lower in rank than a Commissioner may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order. The provision of this Section further provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within aforesaid period of sixty days allow it to be presented within further period of thirty days. In this case, it is observed that impugned order was received by the appellant on 21.11.03, therefore, time limit prescribed for filing the appeal before this authority expired on 21.1.2004. However, on sufficient cause being shown by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) can allow the appeal to be presented within further period of thirty days. It is seen that this expired on 21.2.2004, as the appellants have filed the appeal in question on 23.3.2004 i.e. after lapse of more than a month of the extended period. Therefore, I am unable to entertain the appeal as the applicants have failed to file the appeal even within the extended period of thirty days. The Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai in case of Mayur Steel Corporation v. Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad held that -Since Commissioner -(Appeals) has no power to condone delay beyond 90 days he has no alternative but to dismiss the same as barred by limitation. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the appellant's case. In the event, I dismiss the appeal as being not maintainable under the status.