Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
United Telecoms Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 20427 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/28013/2013 in ST/27659/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/27659/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 22/2013(H-II)S.T. dated 13/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad] United Telecoms Ltd. H.no.6-3-649/5, 2nd Floor, Chakilam House, Somajiguda HYDERABAD AP-500082 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH-500004 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B.N. Gururaj, 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: 28/03/2014 Date of Decision: 28/03/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the condonable period of delay. The learned counsel submits the following details.
i) Date of receipt of impugned order: 2.11.2012. Date of receipt of impugned order excluded.
ii) Expiry of 2 months period: 3.11.2012 to 2.1.2013.
iii) Expiry of further 30 days period of condonable delay: 3.1.2013 to 2.2.2013.
iv) As 2nd and 3rd February were Saturday and Sunday respectively, not being working days for the appellate authority, appeal was presented in the office of the first appellate authority on 4.2.2013, which was a Monday. This will amount to presentation of memo of appeal on the last date of limitation, as per section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
2. We find that the submissions made above are correct and therefore the appeal filed is actually not beyond the condonable period of delay at all. Since the order was passed without giving an opportunity to the appellants to present their case and in view of the submissions made, we consider that the impugned order has to be set aside and since the impugned order is not on merits, the matter has to be remanded for consideration of the issues afresh in accordance with law. We do so. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr...
2