Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Orient Craft Limited (Eou-Ii) vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iii on 8 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017 COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. ST/885/2009 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 223-MA-GGN-2009 dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon] Date of hearing/decision: 08.09.2016 For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes Orient Craft Limited (EOU-II) : Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-III : Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Jay Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO. 61311/2016 Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their appeal was dismissed as time bar by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant received adjudication order dated 15.01.2009. Against the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14.07.2009 alongwith application for condonation of delay seeking condonation of delay as their accountant who was dealing the matter was on leave during that period, therefore, they were not aware of the adjudication order was required to be challenged in this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not extended the time for filing the appeal invoking the proviso to Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as the appellant has filed the appeal within condonable period, therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to decide the case on merits and delay was required to be condoned. He prayed that as the appellant has filed the appeal within the condonable period, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to him for passing an order on merits.
4. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions.
6. Admittedly in this case the appeal has been filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the period of limitation but as per the provision of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, delay can be condoned by another three months if the reasons for delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. It is noted that the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within condonable period. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the reasons stated for filing the appeal after period of limitation are not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the Records. The reasons causing delay are to be considered sympathetically and therefore, the appellant should not be deprived of merits of the case. In that circumstance, we condone the delay in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed the order on merits, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Devender Singh Member (Technical) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) RAS 3