Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Indo Straits Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Mumbai Ii on 13 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. ST/457/10 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.YDB/251/MII/2010 dated 19.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Indo Straits Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Mumbai II
Respondent
Appearance None For appellants Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 13.03.2014 Date of Decision : 13.03.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their appeal has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner on the ground of limitation.
2. This matter was listed for hearing today when none appeared for the applicant inspite of notice nor there is any request for adjournment. The matter has been listed three times earlier when also the appellant has not appeared. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3. It is a case where the adjudication order was received by the appellant on 29.05.2009. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 09.09.2009. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismiss the appeal as time barred as the same has not been filed within the period of 3 months of the receipt of the adjudication order as per the provisions of Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1991. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me.
4. During the relevant time the time limit to file the appeal was three months but the same can be extended by another ..month if the reason for causing delay has been explained satisfactorily. On perusal of the order I find that a personal hearing was taken place. During the personal hearing, only the merits of the case was discussed and the objection of limitation was not raised by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the appellant. Later-on, the appeal was dismissed on limitation. In these circumstances, I hold that there is a violation of principle of natural justice towards considering the issue of limitation. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to first to decide the issue of limitation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits. In these terms, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3