Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Chaphekar Engg. Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I on 23 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION No. E/S/1098/12 APPEAL No. E/768/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/34/2012 dated 9.3.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
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?
====================================================== Chaphekar Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Respondent Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for appellant Shri V.R. Kulkarni, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 23.7.2012 Date of Decision: 23.7.2012 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,38,114/-, interest and penalty.
3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with application for condonation of delay of 28 days. The appeal was dismissed as time barred by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the applicant failed to explain the reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation.
4. The applicant now filed an affidavit of the Excise Officer of the applicant to submit that the Excise Officer was on long leave for 2= months due to illness and also produced a medical certificate showing that he suffered from lumbago sciatica painful and aggressive and advised bed rest, therefore the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time barred is not sustainable.
5. The Revenue submitted that before the Commissioner (Appeals) the applicant had not produced evidence in support of their claim that the Excise Officer was on medical leave, therefore the appeal was rightly dismissed.
6. We find that now the applicant produced evidence that the concerned Excise Officer of the applicant was on medical leave and he was suffering from lumbago sciatica. Further, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal on showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. In view of the evidence produced by the applicant regarding illness of the Excise Officer, the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), after waiving the pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues and thereafter to decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
(Dictated in Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3