Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Indian Potash Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 August, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD COURT No. I APPEAL No.E/70726/2016-EX[SM] (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/000/APPL-I/619/2015-16 dated 31/03/2016passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Meerut) M/s Indian Potash Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for Appellant Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 22/08/2017 Date of Decision : 22/08/2017 FINAL ORDER NO 70799 / 2017 Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar
The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/000/APPL-I/619/2015-16 dated 31/03/2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Meerut.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an appeal was filed by the appellant before learned Commissioner (Appeals), challenging the Order-in-Original No.31/AC/MZN-I/2014 dated 16.12.2014. The appellant submitted before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant came to know about the said Order-in-Original dated 16.12.2014, only after a letter dated 11.09.2015 issued by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent. The appellant also contended before learned Commissioner (Appeals) that after coming to know about such an order, they made application on 06.10.2015 to Department to provide a copy of said Order-in-Original. Further, on 23.12.2015 they traced a copy in their record which was meant for Range Superintendent. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) made inquiry with the jurisdictional Range Superintendent. It is recorded in the impugned Order-in-Appeal that jurisdictional Superintendent informed learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the said Superintendent did not have a copy of the acknowledgement through which Order-in-Original was served on the appellant, since the said acknowledgement was forwarded by him to the original authority. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Commissioner as time barred.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant who has submitted that even today copy meant for them was not served on them and what was received by them was a copy meant for Range Superintendent. He has further submitted that the copy of the report submitted by the Range Superintendent to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not served on them and their comments were not sought by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore he contended that the principals of natural justice were violated.
4. Heard the learned A.R., who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal.
5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with directions that learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall make copy of report of range superintendent submitted to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), informing the details of the register under which copy of said acknowledgement was forwarded by range superintendent to original authority available to the appellant. I further direct the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to obtain the acknowledgement from the file of original authority and make the same available to the appellant and allow the appellant to present their contention on the same and after taking the contention of the appellant into consideration decide whether the said appeal was filed in time or not and in case the said appeal was filed in time, decide the appeal on merits.
6. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remand the matter for fresh adjudication in above stated terms to the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
(Dictated in Court) (Anil G. Shakkarwar) Member (Technical) akp 1 4 APPEAL No.E/70726/2016-EX[SM]