Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Gee City Builders (P) Ltd vs C.C.E., Chandigarh Ii on 20 November, 2009

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi

COURT-III

 Date of hearing/decision: 20.11.2009
   
   Stay Application No.2347 of 2009 and
Service Tax Appeal No.612 of 2009


Arising out of the order in appeal No.18/CE/Chd-II/2009 dated 19.5.2009  passed by the Commissioner   (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh II.
		
For Approval and Signature:

Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan,  Member (Technical)
Honble Mr. D.N.Panda, Member (Judicial)

1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
yes
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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

M/s Gee City Builders (P) Ltd.			.       Appellants/Applicants
			 
Vs.

 C.C.E., Chandigarh II				.		     Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for the appellants/applicants Shri S.R. Meena, Authorized Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Mr.M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. D.N. Panda, Member (Judicial) Oral Order No.____________________ Per M. Veeraiyan:
Heard both sides.

2. In view of the order, we are proposing to pass, we waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the impugned order.

3. Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the merits of the case rejected the appeal of the party on the ground of limitation. It is the case of the appellant that the order dated 5.8.08 was received by them only on 12.12.2008. The case of the appellant is that there is no delay in filing of appeal. The evidence on the actual date of dispatch or the date of communication is not placed before us. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has powers to condone the delay up to three months in terms of Section 85 (3) of the Finance Act, we direct the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay, which shall be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. With the above direction the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed off.

(M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) (D.N.Panda) Member (Judicial) scd/ 2