Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Wep Peripherals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 21 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE MISC ORDER No. 20440 / 2014 FINAL ORDER No. 20262 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/20117/2014 in ST/20149/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/20149/2014 (Arising out of impugned Order-in-Appeal No.61/2013-14 dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mysore.) Wep Peripherals Ltd Plot No.312-313, Hebbal Industrial Area, MYSORE - 570016 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - Mysore S1-S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570 011 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES #1010, 1st floor(Above Corp.Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore Bangalore 560 041 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr.A.K.Nigam, Addl.Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 21/02/2014 Date of Decision: 21/02/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appeal has been rejected on the ground that there was a delay of one day in receipt of appeal in the office of the Commissioner (A). The learned Commissioner (A) has made a very detailed observation amounting to more than one typed page explaining why the delay cannot be condoned and why due diligence condition is not fulfilled by the appellant and why it should be held that they have not taken sufficient care. We do not go into all these aspects. We have found several applications for condonation of delay filed by the Commissioners in the jurisdiction of this Tribunal wherein similar requests have been made that if there is a delay in delivery of the appeal papers by post, the same may be condoned and in such cases where there is delay of one day or more, the delay has always been condoned by us. Since we have followed a certain principle in condoning the delay in filing of appeals filed by the Revenue, we consider it appropriate that appellant should also be given the same benefit. Accordingly delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A) is condoned since it is within the condonable period of one month in accordance with law and Commissioner (A) is directed to decide the stay application and appeal after due consideration and after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case. In the result, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (A) and the impugned order is set aside.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2