Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 22114 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/21230/2014 in E/21103/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/21103/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MYS-EXCUS-000-DIVV-APP-HAB-014-2014 dated 28/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore] Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Ltd. Bharathinagar, K.M. Doddy, Maddur Taluk Mandya Dist. - 571 422 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore S1-S2, Vinaya Marga, Siddhartha Nagar, Mysore 570 011 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. H.S Anantha Padmanabha, Advocate No.108 'Srimatha', NHCS Layout, III Stage, IV Block, Basaveswaranagar, Banglaore 560 079 For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 25/11/2014 Date of Decision: 25/11/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the condonable period by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. It has also been observed by the learned Commissioner that appellants have not filed an application for condonation of delay.
2. The learned consultant counters these observations and the reliance on these observations by the learned AR while stating that the appeal was filed in the office of Commissioner in Mangalore initially and thereafter it was transferred by the Commissioner, Mangalore to the office of the Commissioner in Mysore and in the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the date of receipt of the appeal as the date on which it was received in his office and not the office of Commissioner in Mangalore. He draws our attention to the acknowledgment received by the courier in Mysore as well as in Mangalore. At that time the Assistant Commissioner who passed the order-in-original was in Mysore and the Commissioner (Appeals) office was in Mangalore and both show that the acknowledgment with the rubber stamp of the concerned office. We have seen the acknowledgment received by the appellants courier in Mangalore and it shows that rubber stamp is of the office of the Commissioner. We find in the case of M.R. International Vs. CC, Mumbai [2012 (282) E.L.T. 284 (Tri.-Mum.)] in a similar case, the Tribunal took the view that there was no delay in filing the appeal when the same is transferred by one authority to another. Similar view was taken in the case of Sukinda Chromite Mines of Tisco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bubaneswar [2006 (205) E.L.T. 620 (Tri.-Kolkata)] wherein the appeal had been received in the office of Commissioner (Appeals) Guwahati which was later transferred to Commissioner (Appeals) Bhubaneshwar. It was held that original appeal was received in the office of Commissioner (Appeals) in Guwahati in time. In view of the fact that appeal had been received in the office of Commissioner, Mangalore in time, we consider that there was no reason and no need for filing an application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the delay and we also hold that there is no delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly since the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal as time-barred without considering the merits, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh on merit in accordance with law. It is made clear that if there is a stay application, that will have to be considered separately and thereafter the appeal will be taken up.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 25.11.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss