Govardhan & Co vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...
- CitationAppeal No. 044-2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected an appeal as time-barred on the sole ground that no separate condonation application was filed and condonation was sought only in the grounds of appeal, the Commissioner should direct the appellant to file a separate application rather than reject the appeal outright, where the delay falls within the Commissioner's power to condone. A delay within the condonable period, caused by the partner of an appellant firm attending to the medical treatment of aged parents, constitutes a genuine and bona fide cause for condonation of delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 044-2014 dated 04/03/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), MANGALORE ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI 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
Govardhan & Co Parameshwari Nilaya Kunjathbail Marakada MANGALORE - 575002 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Mangalore 7TH FLOOR...TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL RD., MANGALORE, - 575003 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 17/06/2015
Date of Decision: 17/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21368 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
After condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the present appeal, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the point of time bar.
2. On going through the impugned order, we find that there is a delay of around 18 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), which he refused to condone the delay on the ground that there is no separate condonation application and the appellants have asked for the condonation only in the grounds of appeal. The reason for delay in filing the appeal is that the partner of the appellant firm was attending to the medical treatment of his aged parents at Hyderabad.
3. We are of the view that if Commissioner(Appeals) was of the view that there has to be a separate COD application, he could have directed the appellant to do so, instead of rejecting the appeal. Further the delay is only of 18 days which is within the powers of Commissioner(Appeals) to condone. The said delay has occurred on account of the partner being busy for the medical treatment of his aged parents at Hyderabad. According to us, this is a genuine and a bona fide cause for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner(Appeals) for decision on merits without raising the issue of limitation. Appeals is disposed of in above manner. COD application and stay application also get disposed of.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
3
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