Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bilt Industrial Packaging Co. Ltd vs Cce, Salem on 1 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/S/330-331/09 & E/507 508/09
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 77/2009 (SLM) (CEX) dated 24.04.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, 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?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
1. M/s. BILT Industrial Packaging Co. Ltd. : Appellant
2. Shri J. Ponthiagaraj
Vs.
CCE, Salem : Respondent
Appearance Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Adv., for the appellant Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 01.03.2010 Date of decision : 01.03.2010 FINAL ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty on the Company as well as waiver of penalty on Shri J. Ponthiagaraj, Manager (Accounts).
2. We note that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority was received by the assessees on 01.10.08 and the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 30.11.08. The appeal was filed by the Company only on 01.12.08, the Commissioner has therefore held that the appeal was filed one day beyond the expiry period of statutory limitation. However, the assessees were correct in their submission that since 30.11.08 was Sunday, the appeal could be preferred only on 01.12.08 and therefore, there was no delay in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, after granting the prayer for waiver of predeposit, we set aside the impugned orders (individual had filed the appeal within the statutory period of limitation) and remand the case for fresh decision on the merits of the demand and penalty to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in person.
3. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3