Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sieger Spintech Equipments Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 13 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/S/722/2004 and E/350/2004
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.428/2003-CE dated 5.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore)
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 Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Sieger Spintech Equipments Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 13.10.2010 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram For the reasons recorded below, we waive predeposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof and proceed to take up the appeal itself for final disposal at this stage with the consent of both sides.
2. Against the adjudication order dated 11.6.2003 stated to have been received by the appellants on 26.6.2003, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.8.2003, which appeal was dismissed on the ground of one days delay in filing and in the absence of any application for condonation of the delay.
3. Although learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no requirement of filing an application for condonation, as the date of receipt 26.6.2003 is required to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Since the delay, if any, is only one day, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision, first on the application for condonation, if any filed by the assessees, and thereafter to decide on the merits of the appeal if the delay is condoned. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3