Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Veena Industries Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi on 15 July, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ****
Appeal No : E/10345/2013 (Arising out of OIA-SRP-122-VAPI-2012-13 dated 07/11/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-VAPI) M/s Veena Industries Ltd : Appellant (s) Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi : Respondent (s) Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. Narayan, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Govind Jha, Authorised Representative For approval and signature:
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
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?
No
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM:
MR. H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:15.07.2015
Order No. A/11023 / 2015 Dated 15.07.2015
Per: H.K. Thakur
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SRP/122/VAPI/2012-13 dated 07.11.2012. Under this OIA first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the appellant as time barred by not condoning the delay of 23 days under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Shri Suryanarayan (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that delay of 23 days was within the condonable limit of 30 days under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That the reasons for seeking condonation of delay have been mentioned by Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 7 of the OIA Dated 07.11.2012 and should have condoned by the first appellate authority.
3. Shri Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the order passed by the first appellate authority.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. First appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant as time barred by not condoning the delay of 23 days in filing appeal. The delay was within the 30 days competence of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay. It is observed from the reasons given by the appellant for delay before the first appellate authority that there was some re-organization within the company and the papers got mixed up resulting into delay of 23 days. In the interest of Justice Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. Accordingly, I condone the delay and set-aside the OIA Dated 07.11.2012 passed by the first appellate authority. As the issue has not been decided on merits, the case is remanded back to the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original number in his office record and decide the case on merits after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) govind 3