Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Aditya Birla Nuo Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... on 10 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 20210-20211 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: C/Stay/29200/2013, , C/Stay/29201/2013, in C/2104/2012-DB, C/2105/2012-DB Appeal(s) Involved: C/2104/2012-DB, C/2105/2012-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 108/2012 & 109/2012 dated 04/06/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore , ADITYA BIRLA NUO LTD REGENT INSIGNIA, MUNICIPAL NO.414, 100 FT ROAD, IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax - BANGALORE-CUS C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560001 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Nisha Bineesh, Adv For the Appellant Mr. N.Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 10/02/2014 Date of Decision: 10/02/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Both the appeals have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that appeals were filed beyond the condonable period. The learned counsel submits that before rejecting the appeals on this ground no personal hearing was granted. In this case, initially the appellants had filed appeals on 6.1.2011 and when they did not get any intimation of personal hearing, they themselves had written a letter to Commissioner (Appeals) enquiring about their appeal filed on 6.1.2011. Commissioners office replied to this letter stating that no appeal has been received. Thereafter appellants filed appeals again, which were rejected on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeals. Learned counsel submitted that the very fact that the appellants themselves made an enquiry with the Commissioner (Appeals) would show that they had filed appeals on 6.1.2011. Unfortunately, they could not produce the acknowledgement since the person dealing with the subject had left the company. In any case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Commissioner should have given an opportunity to the appellants to present their case before rejecting the appeals. We find that generally the assessee starts making enquiries about their appeal only when recovery notice is issued by the department and in this case from the facts as narrated before us, appellants on their own tried to find out what happened to their appeals . The appeals seems to stand on a slightly different footing compared to other cases we find before us. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, Commissioner (Appeals) should give an opportunity to the appellants to present their case and decide whether the appeals have been filed beyond the condonable period or not. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr...
x 2