Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Orient Craft Limited vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 20 November, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. I Date of hearing / decision : 20.11.2015 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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 Departmental authorities? Service Tax Appeal No. 890 of 2009 (Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 224/MA/GGN/2009 dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Gurgaom). M/s Orient Craft Limited Appellant Vs. CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. A. K. Jain, Rep. for the appellant Sh. Ranjan Khanna, DR for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 53709 / 2015 Per: R. K. Singh:
Appeal is filed against order-in-appeal dated 27.08.2009 in terms of which the assessees appeal against order-in-original dated 09.01.2009 was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay beyond the period of three months in filing appeal and that the assessee did not provide sufficient reason to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Vide the said order-in-original the appellants refund claim for Rs. 1,77,456/- under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was rejected.
2. The appellant has contended that it had no intention to file the appeal late and the delay in filing the appeal happened because the employee who was dealing with the case suffered from kidney failure and therefore remained absent for long time.
3. Ld. DR reiterated that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not satisfied with the said reason for delay.
4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the appeal has been filed with a delay of a period which was within the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone. Having regard to the submissions made by the appellant, we are of the view that it has been able to make out a reasonable case which in our view warranted condonation of delay. It has been a consistent view of various superior Courts that in the matters involving condonation of delay, relatively liberal view should be adopted if the delay is not deliberate. In the light of the aforesaid analysis we allow the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to decide the appeal on merit.
(R. K. Singh) Member (Technical) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Pant