Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Bhoramdev Sahakari Shakkar vs Cce, Raipur on 13 July, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 839 of 2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 70/RPR-II/2008 dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Raipur).
DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2009
DATE OF DECISION : 13.07.2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN, 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 ?
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 their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s Bhoramdev Sahakari Shakkar . Appellant
Utpadak Karkhana Marydit (Rep by Ms. S. Naik, Adv.)
VERSUS
CCE, Raipur . Respondent
(Rep. by Sh P.K. Singh, DR)
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RMS KHANDEPARKAR, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
ORAL ORDER NO.___________________________
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR :
Heard.
2. The appellant challenges the impugned order whereby the appeal filed by them has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 21 days in filing the same.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the lower appellate authority has considered the matter from the point of view of failure on the part of the appellant to put forth their defence before the original authority and on that count has refused to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. In fact, the perusal of the records apparently disclose that, it was a matter relating to the demand of duty of more than Rs. 30 lacs from the appellant which is a cooperative society. Bearing in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court on the aspect of condonation of delay, we find that there was sufficient cause shown by the appellant for condonation of delay. Absence of appropriate person on behalf of the appellant at the relevant time to deal with the matter, which was clearly borne out from the records by the appellant, was sufficient to justify the delay of 21 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the discretion has been judiciously exercised by the lower appellate authority while rejecting to condone the delay of 21 days. Therefore, it is a fit case for allowing the appeal and condoning the delay. Being so, in our consideration opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the matter to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction that the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is to be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of law.
4. In the circumstances, the appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. The delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and the Commissioner (Appeals) shall deal with the appeal in accordance with the provisions of law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR) PRESIDENT (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Golay