Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sampre Nutritions Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 7 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20533-20535 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/COD/20305/2014 & E/Stay/20306/2014 in E/20320/2014 E/MISC/20337/2014 in E/28103 & 28254/2013-DB E/Stay/28744 & 28938/2013 in E/28103 & 28254/2013 Appeal(s) Involved: E/20320/2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 42/2013 dated 26.6.2013, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad-IV] E/28103/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Stay No. 50/2013 dated 11/06/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad-IV] E/28254/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 58/2013 dated 06/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad-IV] M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd. Appellants Plot No.133 Industrial Estate MEDCHAL, A.P. 501401. Shri Anil Sidhani, Director, M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd. Plot No.133 Industrial Estate MEDCHAL, A.P. 501401. Appellant(s) M/s Cadbury India Ltd. Cadbury House, 19, Bhulabhaidesai Road MUMABAI-400066 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax - Hyderabad-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD-500001 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 07/04/2014 Date of Decision: 07/04/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY In these three appeals, issue involved is common and therefore, all the appeals are taken together for decision and a common order is being passed.
2. In the case of M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd., appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is that the appellants were shifting their Registered office from Secunderabad to Medchal. According to the appellant, because of this, there was misplacement of files and they were able to recover a copy of the order on 27.1.2014. However, learned A.R. submitted that the Order-in-Appeal was sent to the factory address only and therefore, COD application may be rejected.
3. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions that their registered office was shifted from Secunderabad to Medchal in the first week of July 2013 and during the course of shifting the premises, the files were mis-placed and the appellant was able to recover a copy of the impugned order only on 27.1.2014. Under these circumstances, it may not be appropriate to reject the COD application outright. Further, we also take note of the fact that on the very same issue for earlier periods, this Tribunal had granted unconditional stay. That being the position, we consider that in the interest of justice, the delay has to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay but subject to the condition that the appellant deposits an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost, within eight weeks and reports compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) since after hearing both sides, it was found that in all the cases, the appeals have been dismissed because the appellant did not comply with the stay order requiring deposit of duty amount in the case of M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd. and 25% of penalty imposed in the case of Shri Anil Sidhani, Director of M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd. and in the case of M/s Cadbury India Ltd.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the very same issue, this Tribunal had granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of the amounts demanded for the period from April 2007 to March 2011 vide Misc. order Nos. 28265-28267/2013 dated 18.12.2013. Since we have already considered the issue and granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery, we consider that the impugned orders requiring the appellants to deposit duty / penalty for the purpose of hearing the appeals have to be set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be requested to decide the matter on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to decide the issue on merits without insisting any pre-deposit.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/