Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Suryansh Diamonds (P) Ltd vs Cc, New Delhi on 6 June, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2005 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/254-257/ACU/DelhiI/2005 dated 20.06.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi-I, New Delhi] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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? 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 Departmental authorities? M/s. Suryansh Diamonds (P) Ltd. Appellants Vs. CC, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Hasinga, Advocate for the appellants, Shri A.K. Madan, SDR, Departmental Representative, for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 6th June, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as time barred.
3. Learned SDR submitted that there are four orders-in-original but the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed single order-in-appeal. As per provisions of Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, the assessee has to file one appeal against each order-in-original. We have gone through the orders-in-appeal. The appellants filed only one appeal against order-in-original. It is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration one appeal filed by the appellants. In these circumstances as only one appeal has been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same has been disposed of we find no force in the objection raised b the learned SDR.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time barred on the ground that there was a delay in filing the appeal. Contention of the appellants is that delay in filing the appeal is less than 30 days and as per provision of Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay up to 30 days on showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within normal period of limitation. Contention is that the appellants filed application for condonation of delay along with medical certificate showing that the concerned person was not well and was down with Hepatitis. In these circumstances as the appellants produced medical certificate in support of the illness of the concerned person, therefore, delay in filing appeal is condoned. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT (RAKESH KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dated 9th June, 2008-06-09 RK