Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt ... vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 31 January, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Court No.II
E/Stay 55143/13 in E/Appeal No.55163/2013
(Arising out of order in appeal No.127-128/RDN/CE/JPR.1/2012 dated 14.9.12 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise(Appeals), Jaipur)
Date of Hearing: 31.1.2013
For Approval and signature:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member Judicial
Honble Mr.Sahab Singh, Technical Member
_________________________________________________
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 would 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 of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the
Department Authorities?
M/s. Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd Appellants
Vs
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appeared for the Appellant: Shri , Advocate Appeared for the Respondent: Shri I. Beg, DR Coram: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member Judicial Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member Technical Stay Order No. 55173/2013 Final Order No.55551/2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the point of time bar. The impugned order was passed on 17.2.2009 but the same was not received by the appellants. However, when the Revenue approached for recovery of dues from appellants, they came to know about the passing of the said order and prayed for a copy and an appeal was filed on 18.1.2010
2. Learned Advocate draws our attention to an order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan while disposing of the stay petitions filed by them but it stands noticed by the Honble High Court as regards supply of original copy of the order. Accordingly, directions to file appeal along with condonation of delay application were given.
3. From the above, it becomes clear that the appellants factory was lying closed during the relevant period and a photo copy was procured by them subsequently. As such, the date of receipt of the photocopy of the order is relevant for the purpose of counting the period of limitation for filing the appeal. As per the Revenue, the impugned order of original adjudicating authority was sent to the appellant by registered post. However, it is not their case that it was sent by registered AD. As such by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the delay in filing the appeal, if any is not actual delay in as much as the limitation period has to be considered from the date of receipt of the order. We accordingly, after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), dispense with the condition of pre-deposit, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.
4. The stay petition as also the appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) (ARCHANA WADHWA) Member Judicial (SAHAB SINGH) Member Technical MPS* ??
??
??
??
2