An appellate authority, being a creature of statute, lacks the jurisdiction to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the specific time limits prescribed by the relevant Act, as the statutory period for limitation cannot be extended by invoking discretionary powers beyond the legislative mandate.

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.129-ST/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 26/02/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow. By the impugned order following has been held:-

“In this regard I find that Commissioner (Appeals) being creature of law is bound by the machinery provisions contained in the statute and cannot exceed the jurisdiction contained in the statute. Thus, without going into merit of the case, in the light of the statutory provision as above the appeal is rejected on the ground of being time barred.”

2.1 None appeared for hearing in the matter despite notice nor has any request for adjournment been received. I have been informed by the court master that Mobile No.9415544616 of the Counsel mentioned on vakalatnama is not reachable and Mobile No.7080996090 mentioned in the appeal memo when contacted is said to be a wrong number. Therefore, the contact is not possible from the party. In view of the above I do not see any reason for not proceeding in the matter when same is in very narrow compass.

2.2 I have heard Shri A.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue.

3.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments.

3.2 I find that the appellant had filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) against order in original dated 16.02.2022 on 21.04.2023. Appellant contended that she had filed the before the Commissioner (Appeal), with some delay which could have been condoned by the said authority and matter considered on merits.

3.3 In the appeal memo filed by the appellant at S No 4 appellant has very categorically mentioned as follows:

Thus going by the appellants own averment with respect to the date of communication, the appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) could have been filed by 01.04.2023 (within normal period of limitation) and by 01.05.2023 along with the application for condonation of delay.

3.4 I also find that appellant has in the index the appeal memo filed before CESTAT referred to an affidavit confirming the fact about late receipt of the order. S No 9 of the Index to Appeal Memo is reproduced below:

However I do not find any such affidavit available in the file after scanning through each and every page of the appeal file. Be that as it is I find a letter dated 01.02.2023 in the file along with which the copy of order in original was served to appellant on 02.02.2023 as claimed by the appellant. The scanned copy of the letter is reproduced below:

C. No. CGST/LKO-II/R-IV/Lalita Gupta/36/2020 Dated : 01.02.2023

To,

Smt. Lalita Gupta (Prop. of M/s. Max Advertising),

133/231/85, Aminabad Road, New Ganeslganj,

Lucknow.

(Present Address : 569 KA, 229, Sneh Nagar,

Alambagh, Lucknow)

Dear Sir,

Sub:- Providing the copy of Order-in-Original No. 272/DC/CGST/LKO-II/2022 dated 16.02.2022 - C/reg.

Please refer to your letter dated 27.01.2023 regarding request to provide the copy of Order-in-Original dated 16.02.2022 for filing an appeal.

In this regard, it is to inform that the said Order-in-Original No. 272/DC/CGST/LKO-II/2022 dated 16.02.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Division, Lucknow-II has already been sent to you vide C. No. CGST/LKO-II/R-IV/Lalita Gupta/36/2020/108(S/L) dated 16.02.2022 and the same has not been returned back undelivered by the postal authorities.

However, as per your request, the copy of the said Order-in-Original dated 16.02.2022 is being provided to you.

Encl: As above

Yours sincerely,

(K. K. Chauhan)

Superintendent (Range-IV)

3.5 In respect of the above impugned order records as follows:

Before going into the mer