Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Raghav Alloys Pvt.Ltd vs Cc, Amritsar on 20 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
DIVISION BENCH
Court No.2
Date of hearing/Decision: 20.03.2014
Appeal No.C/180/2009-Cus
(Arising out of OIA No.01/Cus/Ldh/09 dt.23.1.09 passed by CC & CE (Appeals), Chandigarh)
Raghav Alloys Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CC, Amritsar Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Sh.Naveen Bindal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Gobind Dixit, DR Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Technical Member FINAL ORDER No. 51302/2014 PER: D.N.PANDA Learned Counsel submits that if the matter goes back to learned Commissioner (Appeals), he shall explain the date of service of the order appealed, limitation for filing appeal as well as power of learned authority to exercise discretion to condone the delay if any. It is categorical admission on behalf of the appellant today that the order in original was served on the appellant on 6.8.2007 and limitation started from that date. It was also submitted that in worst case, appeal may be delayed by one day which is condonable taking into account lunar calendar. According to the appellant, limitation is countable form 6.8.2007 since appeal was filed on 5.11.2007 and that date was not in dispute.
2. Revenue says that adjudication order was despatched by registered post on 1.8.2007 by receipt No.147. This aspect is not in dispute since that is evident from postal receipt. Therefore limitation should be counted from that date for the purpose of entertaining of the appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal being time barred. Ld.DR also relied upon the judgement Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Uttam Sucrotech International (P) Ltd.-2011 (264) ELT 502 (Del.).
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. We note that because of uncertainties as above came up as to the date of order service of impugned order, an enquiry from adjudicating authority is desirable to reduce the dispute. He found that impugned order was sent by registered post on 1.8.2007. But he did not further enquire as to the person on whom the said registered post was served. He reached to the conclusion that registered post was delivered on 6.8.2007. Appellant suggests that if the matter goes back, he shall be able to explain calculation of limitation period from 6.8.2007 and also one day delay shall be examined.
5. To serve the interest of justice, we remand the matter to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant in detail on the above submissions and pass appropriate order on the aspect of delay making due enquiry. Upon his satisfaction of existence of reasonable cause, he may exercise discretionary power. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with this matter shall also take into account the principle laid down by Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Uttam Sucrotech International (P) Ltd.-2011 (264) ELT 502 (Del.) relied upon by learned DR.
6. In view of aforesaid observation, appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to pass appropriate order.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)
(MANMOHAN SINGH) (D.N.PANDA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mk
3
Appeal No.C/180/2009-Cus