Keihin India Manufacturing Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida
[Citation -2020-LL-0211-77]

Citation 2020-LL-0211-77
Appellant Name Keihin India Manufacturing Private Limited
Respondent Name Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 11/02/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • documentary evidence • period of limitation • central excise act • evidence on record • claim of rebate • rate of duty • service tax


Court No. - 7 Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 18 of 2020 Appellant :- M/S Keihin India Manufacturing Private Limited, A-1 and A-2, Sector-81, Phase-II, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201305 Respondent :-Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida Counsel for Appellant :-Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :-Ashok Singh Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. This Central Excise Appeal, under section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is in respect of judgment and order dated 27th June, 2019, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, Regional Bench - Court No.1. For convenience, impugned judgment and order is reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety:- "The miscellaneous application is for early disposal of appeals and in face of no objection by learned DR and issue involved being small issue, I accept prayer and proceed to decide appeals itself. 2. It is seen that appellant's claim of rebate was adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-In-Original dated 02 December, 2015. Vide this order, part of claim was sanctioned and other part was rejected. Being aggrieved with that part of order of Assistant Commissioner vide which their rebate claim was rejected, appellant filed 3 (three) appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Appellate Authority observed that order stands passed on 02 December, 2015, appellant has filed appeals on 01 July, 2016 by showing date of receipt of (2) order on 10 May, 2016. Accordingly, he took up matter with office of Assistant Commissioner and called for report. As per intimation by Assistant Commissioner, order dated 02 December, 2015 was handed over to appellant's representative on same very date along with cheque of sanctioned amount by taking proper acknowledgement thereagainst. Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that cheques for sanctioned amount which were also handed over by Revenue to appellant on 02 December, 2015 itself which were credited in their bank account on 14 April, 2015 itself, thus establishing beyond doubt that order impugned before him was handed over to appellant on 02 December, 2015. As such he observed that there was delay of 211 days in filing appeal before him, for which he has no powers to condone. 4. Learned advocate, Ms. Anshika Agarwal appearing for appellant draws my attention to dispatch register produced on record showing signatures of appellant's representative. She submits that they are not disputing that said signature are of appellant's representative only but submits that same were for receipt of cheque but not for receipt of Order-In-Original. As such she submits that conclusion of Authorities below that Order-In-Original was served upon appellant on 02 December, 2015 is factually incorrect. 5. I note that apart from fact that above submission of learned advocate is not supported by any documentary evidence on record, register showing signature of appellant is 'Dispatch Register' and same is showing dispatch of order, wherein details of Order-In- (3) Original including numbers stands shown. This fact by itself establishes that it was order which was handed over personally to appellant's representative. 6. However, otherwise when cheques given to appellant were lesser in amount than rebate claimed by them, same would establish that matter stands adjudicated. Any rational prudent man would take up matter with concerned Authority questioning payment of lesser amount of rebate than one claimed by them. Subsequent to 02 December, 2016 there is no correspondence by appellant with concerned Authority. All these facts lead to inevitable conclusion of order having been served upon appellant on 02 December, 2015 only. 7. period of limitation of 60 days starts running from date of receipt of impugned order. same would in present case would expire on or around 02 March, 2015. appeal admittedly stands filed on 01 July, 2016 with delay of 211 days. It is settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone delay beyond period of 30 days as prescribed under Act. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Singh Enterprises V/s CCE, Jamshedpur reported as 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC). 8. Inasmuch as delay in present appeals in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was to extent of 211 days, I am of view that Appellate Authority has rightly rejected appeal on ground of time bar. No infirmity can be found in order. Accordingly, all 3(three) appeals filed by appellant are rejected. 9. Miscellaneous applications also gets disposed of." (4) Relevant portion of section 35-G, being section 35-G(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, is required to be noticed and same is set out hereinbelow:- (1) appeal shall lie to High Court from every order passed in appeal by Appellate Tribunal on or after 1st day of July, 2003 (not being order relating, among other things, to determination of any question having relation to rate of duty of excise or to value of goods for purposes of assessment), if High Court is satisfied that case involves substantial question of law. plain reading of aforesaid provision of law reveals that appeal shall lie to High Court from every order passed in appeal by Appellate Tribunal other than exceptions as specified in section 35-G (1) only if High Court is satisfied that case involves substantial question of law. bare perusal of judgment and order dated 27th June, 2019, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, Regional Bench - Court No.1, does not reveal that case involves any substantial question of law. As such, we do not find any merit in instant appeal and same is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.2.2020 Neeraj (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) Keihin India Manufacturing Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida
Report Error