Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Suvarnamukhi Bio Tech Park Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 28 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order . 20630 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/28951/2013, E/Stay/28952/2013 in E/28267/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/28267/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-appeal No. 521/2013 dated 03/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), BANGALORE] Suvarnamukhi Bio Tech Park Pvt Ltd Sy.no.227 And 273, Salhaunse , Kaggalipura, South Taluk, BANGALORE - 560062 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Bangalore-iii PB.NO.5400...QUEENS ROAD, CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Laxmi Narayan, Adv NO.37, 11TH MAIN, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE -560 052 KARNATAKA For the Appellant CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 28/04/2014 Date of Decision: 28/04/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the condonable period. Since we find that appeal has to be finally decided at this stage itself, we take up the appeal for disposal waiving the requirement of predeposit of the dues.
2. The learned Commissioner has observed that the impugned order-in-original was dispatched on 06.03.2012 and the same was received by the appellant on 07.03.2012. For this, he has relied upon the xerox copy of the speed post document and the report of the Superintendent of Central Excise of Bangalore III Commissionerate in the letter dated 31.07.2013.
3. After hearing both sides, we find that in this case according to speed post acknowledgement, the receipt has been acknowledged on 06.03.2012 whereas both the documents relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) stated that the appellant had received it on 07.03.2012. Therefore there seems to be something wrong with the dates communicated. Even in the copy of the letter written to the appellants on 25.03.2013, the same mistake appears. In fact the Superintendent(Adjudication) in his letter dated 25.03.2013 has stated that the order-in-original was dispatched under RPAD vide Sl. No. 846 dated 06.03.2012 and was received on 07.03.2012. Further the learned counsel also submitted that he has written to the Department of Posts and the Department of Posts had replied to the appellant had no such RPAD was booked at all by them. Further this letter is incomplete and requires the appellant to await further communication from the Manager Speed Post Sector. Apparently no further communication has been received nor the same has been pursued by the appellants. In view of the above confusion and in view of the vehement submission by the learned counsel that the appellant never received the impugned order, before the Commissioner(Appeals) we feel it appropriate that the matter should be reconsidered by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to reconsider the issue. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before the matter is decided again.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr...
2