Judgment : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 30.9.2013 made in Final Order No.40459 of 2013 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The assessee/appellant is a private limited company registered under the category "Goods Transport Agency". At the time of audit by the Internal Audit, the company's records were audited and it was found from the trial balance that the assessee had collected an amount of Rs.92,57,001/- as hamaii charges and Rs.8,29,777/-as handling charges for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2006. This income was not shown in the returns and had not paid service tax on the said amount. Hence, the Assessing Authority issued show cause notice on 31.10.08. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee, in their written submission dated 12.9.2007 had stated that the value shown in the show cause notice is nothing but reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by them on behalf of their customers towards the service received by them. The Assessing Authority, however, rejected the plea of the assessee, thereby demanded service tax together with penalty by order dated 31.10.2008. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 07.09.2011, i.e, with a delay of 2 years 6 months and 27 days and apparently, the appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, as the same has been filed beyond the condonable period. As against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which upholds the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), relying on the decision reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) (Singh Enterprises V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur), wherein it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the assesee has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the assesee has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. We are surprised and pained to note that the appellant in this case though claims that he filed an application for condonation of delay, we find no such application has been enclosed in the typed set of papers or there is no reference in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was an application for condonation of delay. Even assuming that it is within the condonable period, in the absence of any such application seeking condonation of delay, we fail to see how the Commissioner (appeals) could entertain the appeal. In fact, there was no application even before the Tribunal for the condonation of delay. Hence, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.