Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Geekay Wires P. Ltd vs Cce, Hyderabad on 17 January, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing: 17/01/2011
Date of decision:17/01/2011
Appeal No.E/1260/10;
Application No.E/COD/91/10; E/ST/719/10
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.20/2009(H-I)CE dt. 30/3/2009 passed by CC,E&ST(Appeals), Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Geekay Wires P. Ltd.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Hyderabad
..Respondent(s)
Appearance None for the appellant.
Mr. D.P. Nagendra Kumar, Jt.CDR for the Revenue.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 Per M.V.Ravindran When this matter was called out, none appears for the appellant nor there is any request for adjournment. Heard the ld. Jt.CDR.
2. Ld. Jt. CDR was directed on 29/11/2010 to file the proof of service of the order on the Counsel or Consultant of the appellant. It is his submission that having called for the records from the lower authorities, it transpires that the Order-in-Original was served on the assessee and not on the Counsel or Consultant. He would submit that they got proof of service on the appellant.
3. On careful consideration of application for condonation of delay of 237 days in filing the appeal before us, we find that the appellant has given the following reasons:-
3. The appellate order received by the Security personnel at gate point was handed over to the Accountants Assistant Mr. Veera Raju in the factory premises. The accountant simply kept the order in the file and has not brought to the notice of the management or the notice of the staff at Registered office in Hyderabad city. The service of the appellate order was came to light only when the Superintendent of the Central Excise called on phone Mr. Vasu who is looking after the excise matter and asked him about the payment of duty. When Mr. Vasu approached the Superintendent on 2/2/2010, the Superintendent served a letter asking to pay the duty of Rs.23,42,932/- in cash for the clearances made from 5/8/2006 to 3/11/2006 arisen as per the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).
4. Mr. Vasu immediately brought to the notice of the management about passing of order by the Commissioner(Appeals) and the management directed its staff to find out the order. On verification of inward register at factory gate point, it was found that some order was received on 4/4/2009 at gate point and was handed over to the Accountants Assistant Mr. Veera Raju. When asked, Mr. Veera Raju searched the entire files to find out the order. At last, it was found in an old file and the management took immediate steps to file an appeal.
4. Though an affidavit has been submitted in support of the above paras, we find that the justification / reasoning given by the appellants employee, are feeble and not enough to condone the delay of 237 days. In view of this, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, stay petition and appeal are also dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (M.V.RAVINDRAN) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 3