Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Raymond Calitri Denim Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 August, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. When the stay application come up for hearing, I find most mere is a request for adjournment. However, the issue being small, I proceed to dispose of the appeal itself on granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty as prayed for in the stay application.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was a delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal before him. He mentioned that in two occasions, notices were issued asking the appellants why the appeal should not be dismissed on this ground. No reply being received, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him on the point of limitation. In the appeal memorandum the claim made is that their Assistant filed the appeal late but the assessees were under the impression that the appeal was filed in time. The second claim made is that notices never reached the assessee and, therefore, they could not seek any condonation.
3. I find that the delay is marginal and such small delay cannot be attributed to any malafide on the part of the assessee. Some interesting questions of law are raised in the appeal. It should have engaged the attention of the ld.Commissioner. I, therefore, allow this appeal and remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner who shall condone the delay and proceed to hear the assessee on merits.(Dictated in Court)