Bonai Industries Co Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 80/2014 dated 30/07/2014 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM-I (Appeal).]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, 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? Yes 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

Bonai Industries Co Ltd Rungta House, Chaibasa PO, JHARKHAND - 833201 Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs And Service Tax Visakhapatnam-Cus. CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. G. P. Sastry, Advocate S.C.CHOUDHURY G.R KUMAR & CO NO.9, MERRY LIFE APARTMENTS, DOCTOR'S COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR PO, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 017 For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 07/08/2015

Date of Decision: 07/08/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21784 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The prayer in these applications is to condone the delay of 290 days in presenting the present appeals. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed by Commissioner (A) on 3.4.2014 and was sent to the appellants address given by them in their memo of appeal filed before Commissioner (A). The reasons given by the appellant in their condonation of delay applications is as follows:

The petitioners submit that they have not received the O-i-A said to have been despatched to them since the export had taken place from Vizag port and the appellants are located at a faraway place in Jharkhand, in a remote village by name CHAIBASA. However, they had no idea whether the orders were received or not. After considerable delay, they enquired in the office of Commissioner (Appeals) Vizag and learnt that the orders have been issued and because of lack of communication, the appeal missed the Ninety days deadline. The petitioners have enclosed an affidavit to this effect.

As it is seen from the above, the only reason forwarded by the assessee is that they were not aware of the receipt of the impugned order on account of ignorance and confusion and because of nature of their job. Learned advocate submits that they are not very sure of the receipt of the present impugned order and a copy was obtained by them subsequently. However, there were no details of date for obtaining the copy and how they came to know about the passing of the impugned order and how and when they approached the Revenue for giving them a copy.

2. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay in filing the present appeal, we find that no acceptable reasons stand given by them. The plea taken in is a very general plea of the appellant being ignorance and there being confusion on their part on account of nature of their job. Though we appreciate in condoning the delays a liberal approach should be adopted but such liberal approach has to be on the basis of some justifiable reasons for the delay. In the absence of any sufficient cause being shown by the appellant leading to the huge delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal, we find no reason to condone the same. Accordingly COD application is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

3