SHRI SAI ROLLING MILL Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOM CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant would call in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition and affirming the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal") on 1.7.2016 holding that the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rightly rejected on 16.12.2015 as being barred by limitation, as the same was preferred after condonable period of delay beyond which the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay.

(2.) Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellant purchased debris of old go-down tin shed situated at industrial area, Bhilai from one M/s Jagriti Ispat by a sale deed dated 23.4.2007. The appellant was issued small industries registration certificate by the District Trade and Industry Centre, Durg on 11.2.2008 and was also issued a certificate for exemption from payment of stamp duty. On 19.5.2010, the respondent served a notice on the appellant for deposit of Rs.22,19,135/- along with interest on the ground that the premises having factory of M/s Gyan Industry was purchased by M/s Jagriti Industries and thereafter by the appellant, therefore, the appellant being successor of the industry is liable to pay dues recoverable from M/s Gyan Industries, as contemplated under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter, another communication was served on the appellant on 24.8.2010 (Annexure- P/8 in WP) again directing him to make payment of the subject amount. On 1.1.2013, the appellant informed the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bhilai that he is not successor industry of M/s Gyan Industries, therefore, he is not liable to pay dues recoverable from M/s Gyan Industries. By another communication dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure-P/10), the appellant informed the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhilai-II that he has not purchased any land, plant and machinery from M/s Gyan Industries, therefore, dues may be recovered from M/s Gyan Industries or for that matter from M/s Jagriti Rolling Mills and not from the appellant.

(3.) The appellant thereafter moved WP(T) No.182/2014,which came to be dismissed on 13.1.2015 with liberty to prefer appeal under Section 35 of the Act. The appellant thereafter preferred WP(T) No.16/2016 which was again withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and the Tribunal has also dismissed the appeal refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).