Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Prakash Metal Works, Kiran K. Kansara, ... vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 28 September, 2001
JUDGMENT
1. These four appeals have common facts and are disposed off vide this single order.
2. In each case there was a delay of 64 days in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the ground for delay was that the assessee were considering filing of the applications under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme Rules, 1998, that their consultant had delayed the filing and that the Directors were not keeping good health. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept any of the grounds and dismissed the appeal. Hence these appeals.
3. The appellants request disposal on merits.
4. I have considered the grounds. I find that each of the grounds given has been held as valid for condonation. Thus in the judgment in the case of Krishna & Company v. Collector 1995 (75) ELT 589 the Tribunal held that the ground that the time so spent for pursuing the matter in another forum was condonable. The delay caused by a consultant has also been held to be a ground for condonation. Bansal Plywood Industries v. CCE 1996 (85) ELT 318.
5. In additional grounds taken it has been claimed that in dismissing the appeal without granting an opportunity of being heard the Commissioner (Appeals) had violated the doctrine of natural justice. [2000 (88) ECR 714 Medinex Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CCE]. This argument also goes to support the case of the appellant.
6. The appeals are allowed. The cases are remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals). He shall take the delay as condoned and proceed to hear the appeals on merits.