- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 as against the order dated 16 -7 -2009 [ : 2010 (17) S.T.R. 383 (Tri. - Del.)] passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi affirming the order dated 17 -2 -2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur -II in Appeal No. 8 -9 DK(st)/JPR -II/2009.
(2.) THE appellant is a Cooperative Society, it is mentioned that the Society received a recovery notice of demand raised vide order dated 21 -12 -2006. The appellant came to know, about that order on 28 -8 -2008. On coming to know about the order dated 21 -12 -2006, appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur -II, which has been rejected on 17 -2 -.2009 as time - barred Against that order, further peal was preferred before the Tribunal, New Delhi, which has also been rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal has been preferred.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the orders passed are bad in law as the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the Assessing officer in the year 2006, thus, appeal could not be preferred in time. Knowledge was gathered on 28 -8 -2008 and thereafter, appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) and the same has been illegally dismissed as barred by limitation. Further appeal has also been arbitrarily dismissed by the Tribunal. Delay in the circumstances ought to have been condoned. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no case for interference in the instant appeal is made out. The order of assessment indicates that in spite of notice to show cause why Service tax, interest and penalty should not be levied, no reply was submitted by the assessee till passing of the assessment order. Thereafter, notices for personal hearing were also issued for 10 -8 -2006, 11 -8 -2006 and 30 -10 -2006, but the assessee has failed to avail the aforesaid opportunities. Thereafter, the order was passed by the Assessing Officer demanding Service tax amounting to Rs. 52,475/ - and education cess of Rs. 181/ -. The order for recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Act on the demanded amount was also passed. The order of penalty was also passed, but penalty was not to exceed the Service tax, Appeal was referred and the same has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that appeal was not preferred within time from the date of communication of the order. The limitation was of 60 days and further period of 30 days could have been condoned. The order in -original was communicated much earlier. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur : 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163. (S.C.), the Appellate Authority has no power to allow appeal presented beyond the extended period of 30 days allowed under the law. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the matter, has held that the appellant was served with the order -in -original on 3 -3 -2007 and limitation was bound to be calculated from that date. On 3 -3 -2007, the order was served on one Jaipal Singh. The appellant has not come with clean hands for condonation of delay and it has not mentioned the correct facts. The order of Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) was thus affirmed.;