Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hicure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 May, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20865 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/21379/2014 in ST/21224/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21224/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BEM-EXCUS-000-AC-APP-HAB-11-2014 dated 05/03/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , MYSORE ] Hicure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Chandrika, Chitaguppi Park, Pinto Road, Hubli DHARWAD - 580020 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum No. 71, CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B. N. Patel, Director of the appellant-company For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 20/05/2014 Date of Decision: 20/05/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Appeal has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed with a delay of 13 days and no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the appellants. The appellant had been informed on 23.8.2013 that they should file an application for condonation of delay. Unfortunately no such application was filed. The only ground for rejecting the appeal is that no formal condonation application has been filed. The Director himself appeared for personal hearing and unfortunately could not explain the case at all in detail. After spending quite some time, what we found is that the Director did not have sufficient knowledge and this could have been the reason for non-filing of condonation application before the Commissioner (A). We feel that appellant-company should be given another opportunity to understand the legal provisions, meaning of application for condonation of delay and allowed to file an application for condonation of delay giving whatever reasons they have for not filing the same. Since the delay involved is only 13 days and having seen the representative of the company, the Director representing the case, we consider that in this case a more lenient view may be called for. However, we leave this discretion to the learned Commissioner (A) and request him to consider the application for condonation of delay that may be filed by the appellants untrammeled by our observations made hereinabove. The appellant is directed to file such an application within 30 days from the receipt of this order and the learned Commissioner (A) is requested to consider such an application, if filed, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
2. In view of the above observations, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (A) for fresh decision.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2