Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Sakthi Sugars Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem on 29 April, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/S/89/2010 and E/150/2010
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.147/2009 (SLM) C.E. dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Uma Maheshwari, Adv. Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 29.04.2010 Date of decision : 29.04.2010 Final Order No.____________ After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, I proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage with the consent of both sides (after waiving pre-deposit) as the issue lies within a narrow compass.
2. Aggrieved by the demand of Rs.45,463/- and the penalty of Rs.99,036/-, confirmed and imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, the assessees preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal as time-barred for the reason that it was filed after expiry of the statutory period of limitation the adjudication order was received by the assessees on 04.04.2009 and the appeal was filed on the last date of the expiry of the limitation period before the lower appellate authority i.e., on 04.06.2009.
3. I find that the appeal was filed on the very last date of the expiry of the period of limitation, as the date of receipt of the order in challenge or the date of filing of the appeal, is to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Hence the appeal has been wrongly dismissed as time-barred. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision on merits of the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall pass fresh order after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence.
4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 29-04-2010 ??
??
??
??
2