C. Ex. App. No. 7 of 2016. Case: Kishlay Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Union of India. Gawahati High Court

Case NumberC. Ex. App. No. 7 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Ms. M.L. Gope, Ms. N. Hawelia and Ms. N. Gogoi, Advocates and For Respondents: Shri D.C. Chakraborty and B. Sarma, Advocates
JudgesHrishikesh Roy and Paran Kumar Phukan, JJ.
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35
Citation2017 (346) ELT 186 (Gau)
Judgement DateAugust 31, 2016
CourtGawahati High Court

Order:

  1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned standing counsel for the Central Excise Department.

  2. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to challenge the decision dated 7-5-2015 (page 46), whereby the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has dismissed the appeal and approved the earlier order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30-11-2011 (Annexure-D). It may be noted that the 1st Appellate Authority refused to consider the merit of the appeal, by treating the appeal to be time-barred.

  3. The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, in his original order recorded on 30-7-2010 (Annexure-D), disallowed the Cenvat credit claimed by the petitioner on the ground that the assessee resorted to wilful misstatement and suppression of material information. Thus recovery of Rs. 17,26,595/- availed as Cenvat credit for the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 was ordered from the petitioner, by exercising powers under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

  4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner learnt of the original order only from the demand notice served upon them on 8-12-2010 (Annexure-D) and eventually, the order-in-original was received by the assessee only on 20-12-2010 and the appeal was filed by them on 1-3-2011 and this is within the permissible period, prescribed by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. However the Appellate Authority opined that the original order was delivered by Regd. Post on 7-8-2010 and therefore the limitation period was counted from that date and on that basis, the appeal was declared to be barred by time and was not considered on merit.

  5. While entertainment of appeal beyond the period of limitation can''t be allowed, the key question is the date of knowledge of the assessee. We find from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT