Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

The Commissiner, Municipal ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 March, 2014

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE

Final Order No .    20325 / 2014    
Application(s) Involved:

ST/Stay/892/2012    in    ST/1278/2012-DB

Appeal(s) Involved:

ST/1278/2012-DB 

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.  04/2012 (V-II) dated 16/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam]

THE COMMISSINER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF RAJAHMUNDRY
RAJAHMUNDRY
EAST GODAVARI DIST.,  A.P. 	Appellant(s)
	
	Versus	
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs - VISAKHAPATNAM-II 
CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING,
PORT AREA, 
VISAKHAPATNAM-530035	Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Nagaraj, Adv. For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, 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: 11/03/2014 Date of Decision: 11/03/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the condonable period. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that on enquiry, it was revealed that the impugned Order-in-Original was served on the appellant through the Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs & service Tax, Rajahmundry on 08.2.2011. However, a copy of acknowledgement or evidence on such delivery was not given to the appellant and therefore, the appellant was handicapped with actual receipt of the order by them. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is a Municipality, a Government organization and there could be documentary evidence on delivery of the order and even otherwise, without giving proof on delivery of the order to the appellant and without giving an opportunity to explain or to contest the issue, in our opinion, the impugned order should not have been passed. Accordingly, without wasting further time, we consider it appropriate that the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to provide copy of the acknowledgement and report of the Superintendent or the officer who served the order to the appellant and proceed to decide the matter afresh after observing the principles of natural justice.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/