Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Evergreen Drums & Cans Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Guntur on 12 October, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - SMB
Court I
Date of Hearing:12/10/2012
Date of decision:12/10/2012
E/COD/374, 381, 382/2011
Appeal No.E/3057, 3080, 3081/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.13/2011(T)CE dt. 08/06/2011; No.14/2011(T)CE dt. 9/6/2011 & No.12/2011(T)CE dt. 1/6/2011 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Guntur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Evergreen Drums & Cans Pvt. Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Guntur
..Respondent(s)
Appearance None for the appellant.
Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ These applications filed by the appellant seek condonation of the delay of 69 days involved in the filing of the appeals. There is no representation for the appellant/applicant despite notice, nor any request for adjournment seen on record. I have perused the records and have found that the impugned order was received by the appellant on 13/06/2011 and the appeals were filed on 29/11/2011 with the above delay. The reason stated for this delay is that the consultant who had appeared on behalf of the party before Commissioner(Appeals) at Guntur handed over the orders and connected papers to the concerned persons of the applicant dealing with the matter and the said concerned person dealing with the matter kept the papers with him and totally forgot to bring it to the notice of the applicant. The appellant states that the matter came to their notice very late and that they collected all the papers and handed over the same to their consultant for preparation of the appeals to be filed before this Tribunal. It is further stated that, in the meantime, the consultant met with an accident with fracture in his hand which was covered by plaster and therefore he handed over the drafts of the appeals to the applicant late. It is claimed that, in these circumstances, the appeals could not be filed within the stipulated time.
2. The learned Superintendent(AR) opposes the present applications. According to him, the above explanation of the party is not satisfactory.
3. I have given careful consideration to the averments contained in the COD applications as also to the submissions of the learned Superintendent(AR). The gist of the above averments is that the concerned person dealing with the matter in the appellants office received the orders and kept the same with him and forgot to hand it over to the appellant. The identity of the concerned person dealing with the matter is not forthcoming. The appellant is a corporate entity and hence the concerned person dealing with the matter must be an employee of the company. The knowledge of the concerned person regarding the impugned orders is the knowledge of the company itself and, therefore, the plea that the appellant-company did not notice the existence of the appellate Commissioners orders for a long time even after its employee received those orders is unacceptable. This apart, the averment that the consultant who was entrusted with the work of filing of the appeals met with an accident and suffered fracture in his hand etc. is not supported by any evidence. In the result, there is no cogent explanation of the delay of 69 days involved in the filing of the appeals. The COD applications get dismissed and consequently the appeals are also dismissed as time-barred.
( Pronounced and dictated in open court ) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 4