Acalmar Oils & Fats Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, And ...
- CitationAppeal No. 108/2007 dated 31/12/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may condone a short delay of 6 to 8 days in filing an appeal before the first appellate authority where the explanation offered, that the period of limitation was miscalculated, is accepted as sufficient in the interest of justice, and the matter is accordingly remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits with the delay treated as condoned.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
C/COD/76/2011, C/COD/77/2011 in C/795/2011-SM, C/796/2011-SM
Appeal(s) Involved:
C/795/2011-SM, C/796/2011-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 108/2007 dated 31/12/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-IV]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 109/2007 dated 31/12/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-IV]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Acalmar Oils & Fats Ltd. Aparna Crest, 4th Floor, 8-2-120/112, 88& 89 Banjara Hills, Road No. 2, Hyderabad Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, and Customs Visakhapatnam-IV 4th Floor, Custom House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam - 530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Mr. A.K. Nigam, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 20/03/2015 Date of Decision: 20/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order Nos. 20802-20803 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
Both the appeals have been rejected on the ground that the delay of 6 to 8 days has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the petition filed for condonation of delay, it was the submission of the appellant that they had miss-calculated the period of limitation.
2. I find that the delay is only 6 to 8 days and in the interest of justice it could have been condoned by the Commissioner. Accordingly the delay is condoned and the matters are remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and decided on merits treating the delay as condoned. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER
iss
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free