Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Wipro Ge Medical System Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... on 29 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/160/2006-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 11-2006 dated 25/01/2006 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEM LTD. #4,KADUGODI INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-CUS C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr, B.V KUMAR, Adv #103,17TH "C" MAINROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA , BANGALORE - 560095 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. PAKSHI RAJAN, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 29/09/2016 Date of Decision: 29/09/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20856 / 2016 Per : ASHOK K. ARYA The appellant namely M/s Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd is in appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 11/2006 dated 25/01/2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore.
2. The appellant represented by the learned Advocate, Shri B.V. Kumar, who interalia makes a mention that the impugned order has been rejected on the time bar alone and has not considered the merits of the case.
3. The Revenue has been represented by the learned A.R., Shri Pakshi Rajan, who agreed that the issue has not been examined on merits in the impugned order and this needs examination on merits, when the impugned order rejected the appeal on time bar alone.
4. We have carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides. We are of the considered view that when there was only 10 days delay which was within the grace period of 30 days, it is within the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone and when the said delay of 10 days has been properly explained it was required that in the interest of justice delay should have been condoned and matter could have been heard on merits. 4.1 This Tribunal has issued a Miscellaneous Order No. 20340/2016 dated 19.07.2016, wherein in para 4 of the said Order, it is stated as below:
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the previous Final Order 977/2005 dated 21.06.2005 wherein the Tribunal has observed that the said appeal is in time and the Commissioner (Appeals) Order No 11/2006 dated 25.01.2006 wherein the Commissioner has observed that there is only a delay of 10 days. Therefore keeping in view of the factual position as emanated from the records, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 23.11.2010 needs to be recalled as there is an error apparent on the face of it. Therefore we recall the order and restore the appeal to its original number and now the said appeal is restored for hearing on 18.08.2016.
4. Based on above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall decide it on merits within three months of receipt of this order after giving opportunity of personal hearing and for production of documents, if any to the appellant.
(Order pronounced in open court) ASHOK K. ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr 3