Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Viral Builders vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 1 May, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : ST/10451/2013 (Arising out of OIA-CCE-SRT-I/SSP-187/U/S/35-A dated 05.12.2012, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Surat) M/s. Viral Builders : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 01.05.2015 ORDER No. A/10499 / 2015 Dated 01.05.2015 Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
When this appeal was called out of hearing, Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. It was his case that there was delay of 60 days which was condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals), as per existing provisions. He submits that in Para 3 of the OIA dated 05.12.2012, the first appellate authority has given a finding that no one is appeared on behalf of the appellant and no application for adjournment request is received. Learned Advocate brought to the notice of the Bench a letter dated 29.11.2012 under which the Advocate of the appellant requested for adjournment due to unavoidable reasons he is not able appear for personal hearing on 29.11.2012 and another suitable date may be given. The said letter has been acknowledged by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) Surat on 29.11.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that a letter for adjournment of personal hearing was submitted by the appellant which was not taken into consideration by the first appellate authority for deciding the appeal and condonation of delay. There is thus, violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the first appellate authority is required to be set-aside and the same is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding on condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Needless to say that appellant should be given an opportunity to explain the case regarding condonation of delay.
3. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals).
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL 3