Electronics Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 62/2007 (H-III) C.E. dated 20/12/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-III), Hyderabad.]

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

For approval and signature:

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

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD CHERLAPALLY, HYDERABAD Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax HYDERABAD-III OPP LB STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. A.K.Nigam, AC (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 02/02/2015

Date of Decision: 02/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No: 20199 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After rejecting the request for adjournment, I proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as a short issue is involved.

2. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (A), I find that he has refused to condone the delay of six days on the ground that the appellants plea of mixing of papers with some other papers cannot be held to be sufficient cause. The order passed by the original adjudicating authority was received by the appellant on 5.10.2007 and as such normal period of limitation expired on 4.12.2007. However, the appeal was filed by the assessee on 10.12.2007, with an application for condonation of delay of six days. The appellants had contended that the appeal papers got mixed up with other papers of the company, as such the delay occurred. Apart from the fact that to err is human and such an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee, should have been taken liberally by Commissioner (A). I find that the delay is only of six days. Instead of rejecting the appeal on the point of limitation, the Commissioner (A) should have condoned the same and decided the appeal on merits. Such a non-judicial action on the part of the Commissioner (A) has resulted in passing of seven or more years, without deciding the legal issue involved in the appeal and thus leading to increase and pendency in litigation, which was avoidable.

3. Having said so, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (A) for decision on merits after allowing the COD application. Appeal is disposed of in above manner.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2