Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Modern Paper Converters vs Cce on 11 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(84)ECR441(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants vide their miscellaneous application dated 30.1.1999 made a request to decide their appeal on merits. Therefore the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellant.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 14.12.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.
3. In the impugned order the appeal of the appellant filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was dismissed only on the ground that the appellants had not affixed court fee stamp on the Order-in-Original.
4 Heard Shri Sumit K. Das, JDR on behalf of the Revenue.
5. In this case the appellant filed a classification list effective from 15.5.1992 and claimed therein the rate of duty at 25% in respect of their products in view of Notification No. 14/92. The classification list was approved by the competent authority at the rate of 40% in view of notification No. 20/93. The appellant filed appeal against this order before the Collector of Central Excise and along with their appeal papers appellants also filed Order-in-Original dated 13.8.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Appellant by mistake affixed the necessary court fee stamp on the Order-in-original dated 13.8.1991 instead of affixing it on the impugned order. Before the Collector (Appeals) the appellant also made a request to affix the necessary court fee stamp on the order but the same was declined.
6. The Tribunal is taking a consistent view that non-affixing of court fee stamp on the copy of the Order-in-original filed before the Commissioner is a remediable defect and the appeal should not be dismissed on this ground without giving an opportunity to rectify the defect. The Tribunal in the case of Central India Tobacco Products v. Collector of Central Excise , in the case of Laxmi Vishnu Dye Chent v. Commissioner of Central Excise and in the case of Colfax Labs (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise has specifically held that non-affixing of court fee stamp on the Order-in-original is a remedial defect. In view of the above mentioned decisions of the Tribunal the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to make up the deficiency of affixing court fee stamp.
7. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.