Page 173 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 643
Anticipatory bail (Contd.)
— not granted to accused of GST fraud - See under BAIL ............. 551
Appeal remedy absent against order of non-maintainability of Advance
Ruling application, writ jurisdiction invocable - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION .................................... 40
Appeal to Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling - Limitation -
Condonation of delay - Appeal to be filed within 30 days from date of
communication of order - Delay condonable upto further period of 30
days on sufficient cause being shown - Appellate authority having no
power to allow appeal presented beyond the said 30 days -
Acknowledgement with registered post indicating that Advance Ruling
order received by appellant on 4-10-2019 and such date to be excluded in
computation of time-limit as per Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1977 -
Appeal filed on 4-12-2019 which is one day after the expiry of the grace
period and beyond the condonable powers of the Appellate Authority -
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 excluded in the absence of clause
condoning delay by showing sufficient cause after prescribed period -
Time-limit prescribed in Section 100(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 absolute and not extendable by Court under Section 5 of
Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay not condoned — In Re : Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bangalore (App. A.A.R. - GST - Kar.) ....................... 519
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Condonation of delay -
Appeal filed beyond period of two months and extended period of one
month from date of communication of order dismissed by Commissioner
(Appeals) - HELD : Appellate Authority can entertain appeal by
condoning delay only up to 30 days beyond normal period for preferring
appeal, which is 60 days - Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, justified in
dismissing appeal on the ground of limitation - Decision in Yapp India
Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (365) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal)] is
without any basis and completely contrary to law laid down by Supreme
Court in Singh Enterprises [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] - Also, decision in
M.P. Steel Corporation [2015 (319) E.L.T. 373 (S.C.)] in connection with
Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, hence inapplicable - No illegality
committed in dismissing appeal - Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944
— Diamond Construction v. Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Jabalpur (Tri. - Del.) ....... 193
— Limitation - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Perusal of sub-section
(3A) of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 clearly indicates that appeal shall
be presented within two months from date of receipt of order of
adjudicating authority in relation to Service Tax, interest or penalty -
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting appeal
within aforesaid period of two months, allow same to be presented
within further period of one month - Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994
— Diamond Construction v. Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Jabalpur (Tri. - Del.) ....... 193
— Limitation - Service of adjudication order - Contention that order sent to
wrong address and order dated 31-5-2017 not received till 8-2-2018 when
copy of Order received by assessee pursuant to its request - HELD :
Defect in address typographical error and Commissioner (Appeals)
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  173