Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sanghi Textiles Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 31 January, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20165 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: E/298/2008-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 10/08 dated 31/01/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad] Sanghi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. P.O. Sanghi Nagar, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. Dist Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax - Hyderabad-III OPP LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. P. Gopi, Consultant Central Excise & Customs Flat No. 401, Devine Abode, Main Road, Ashok Nagar Hyderabad - 500 020 For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 31/01/2014 Date of Decision: 31/01/2014 In the impugned order the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned because the Commissioner was not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order is relevant and is reproduced below:
In the Form EA-1 the date of receipt of impugned order was mentioned as 17.11.2007. The appellants vide their letter dated 21.01.2008 informed that they received the impugned order on 13.11.2007 whereas they inadvertently mentioned the date of receipt as 17.11.2007. They requested to condone the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that due to holidays of Sankranthi Festival they could not file the appeal in time i.e. by 12.01.2008; that 12 & 13 of January 2008 were weekly holidays for the Department, 14th January was declared holiday on account of festival and 15th & 16th of January 2008 were declared holidays for their office; that due to unavoidable circumstances, as weekly holidays and festival holidays followed one by one, they were not in a position to file the appeal within time. On going through this, in my opinion, the order should have been passed on merits since the delay was only 5 days and had been explained which in my opinion was reasonable and satisfactory. The learned AR submitted that they have not produced any evidence that holiday was declared on 15th & 16th January 2008 for the appellants factory. If any doubt was there, Commissioner could have got clarification and there is no evidence to show that such clarification was sought. I also find that in his observations he has mentioned that they were prevented from filing the appeal before 12th of January 2008 and the declaration of holidays for the Government office was well known. In this connection, it has to be taken note that if 12, 13 and 14 of January were Government Holidays, according to General Clauses Act, the period for filing the appeal got extended up to 15th January 2008. Therefore we cannot even say that there was 5 days delay. In my opinion the condonation of delay should have been allowed in this case.
2. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits treating the delay as condoned. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss