IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No. 80 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.12.2011 Sh. P. Mody, Chairman M/s Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. …..Appellant vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula …..Respondent CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: - Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J CM No. 19003-CII of 2011 In view of the averments made in the application, delay of 425 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to all just exceptions. CEA No. 80 of 2011 Present appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act 1944 is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in Excise Appeal No. 256 of 2009. Appellant has claimed the following substantial questions of law: - CEA No. 80 of 2011 (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days? (ii) Whether approach of the Tribunal in regard to condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), is sustainable in law? (iii) Whether withdrawal of the second notice dated 14.12.2001, did not constitute sufficient cause for the Appellant not to pursue the matter any further? this resulted in filing of the appeal after a delay of 120 days. We find that the above mentioned questions of law as framed by the appellant do not arise for consideration in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70, It is the said judgment which had been relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant beyond the period of limitation. In view of the said fact, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 7.12.2011 preeti 2