Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rungta Mines Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... on 7 August, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: C/COD/20604/2015, C/COD/20605/2015, C/COD/20609/2015 in C/21014/2015-DB, C/21015/2015-DB, C/21046/2015-DB Appeal(s) Involved: C/21014/2015-DB, C/21015/2015-DB, C/21046/2015-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 50/2014; Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2014; Order-in-Appeal No. 46/2014 all dated 03/04/2014 and all passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS , VISAKHAPATNAM-I (Appeal).] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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? 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. Rungta House, Chaibasa PO, JHARKHAND - 833201 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs And Service Tax Visakhapatnam-cus CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. P. Sastry, Advocate S.C.CHOUDHURY G.R KUMAR & CO NO.9, MERRY LIFE APARTMENTS, DOCTOR'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR PO, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017. For the Appellant Mr. K. T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 07/08/2015 Date of Decision: 07/08/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21781-21783 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The prayer in the application is to condone the delay of around 155 days in presenting the present appeal. We find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed by Commissioner (A) on 30.7.2014 and as per the endorsement appearing on the said order the same was sent to the appellant at their address P.O. Barbil, Keonjhar District, Odisha. This is the address given by the appellant in their memo of appeal filed before Commissioner (A). In addition, a copy of the same was also sent to their advocate at their address given in the memo of appeal.
2. In their condonation of delay application, the appellant has submitted as follows:
The Petitioner requests condonation of delay in submission of appeal based on the reasons detailed in the enclosed letter. The Petitioner presents that they have office in Chaibasa in Jharkhan. The orders were sent there. Due to ignorance and confusion and because of nature of their job, they had no idea whether the orders were received or not. After considerable delay they enquired in office of Commissioner (Appeals) Vizag and learnt that the orders have been issued. Because of that the appeal missed the ninety day deadline. The Petitioner has enclosed an affidavit for the same.
3. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue takes a strong objection to the said plea of the appellant. He submits that as per the appellant the said order was received by them in their office in Chaibasa in Jharkhand. This statement is factually incorrect on the face of it inasmuch as neither the Jharkhand address was given by the appellant before Commissioner (A) nor the impugned order stand sent by the office of the Commissioner (A) to the said address. In any case, he submits that even as per the appellant, there was ignorance and confusion on their part which resulted in late filing of appeal, he submits that it is a well settled law that the delays have to be explained with a reasonable and sufficient cause. The delay which is attributable to the lapses on the part of the assessees cannot be condoned by mere asking for the same.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that he is not very sure of the receipt of the impugned order and they have procured a copy of the same subsequently. However, he is unable to give the date of receipt of the impugned order. He submits that the said order was subsequently procured by them.
5. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay in filing the present appeal, we find that no acceptable reasons stand given by them. The plea taken in is a very general plea of the appellant being ignorance and there being confusion on their part on account of nature of their job. Though we appreciate in condoning the delays a liberal approach should be adopted but such liberal approach has to be on the basis of some justifiable reasons for the delay. In the absence of any sufficient cause being shown by the appellant leading to the huge delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal, we find no reason to condone the same. Accordingly COD application is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Order pronounced in open court) ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4