Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Koradia Exports(India) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, (Exports), ... on 21 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. C/85156/16 (Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-SMP-193/2015-16 dated 27/10/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai-I] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
======================================================= M/s. Koradia Exports(India) Pvt Ltd :
Appellants VS Commissioner of Customs, (Exports), New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai :
Respondent Appearance None for the Appellants Shri. Chatru Singh, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 21/3/2016
Date of decision: 21/3/2016
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-SMP-193/2015-16 dated 27/10/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai-I, whereby Ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal of the appellant being Time Bar. Ld. Commissioner in his findings recorded that Order-in-Original was passed on 3/1/2013 and issued on 16/1/2013 whereas appeal was filed on 25/11/2013 therefore there is a delay of 08 months. Ld. Commissioner has not decided the case on merit. On perusal of record and submission of the appellant made before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was observed that appellant had received attested copy of the order on 11/9/2013 therefore appeal was filed within the 90 days alongwith application for condonation of delay.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice.
3. Shri. Chatru Singh, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. On careful consideration of submission made by Ld. A.R. and perusal of record, I find that Ld. Commissioner has not examined the date of delivery of the order to the appellant. On the contrary, appellant made the statement that they have filed appeal only after receipt of the attested copy of the order dated 11/9/2013. From the fact, it appears that the appellant have not produced any evidence that the original order was not received on or after 16/1/2013 and Ld. Commissioner has also not tried to find out the status of the delivery of the order. Therefore matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) shall verify from the Adjudicating authority regarding the service of the order to the appellant on the basis of evidence and accordingly shall decide the appeal on limitation as well as on merit. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner(Appeals). (Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 3 C/85156/16