Karnataka Christian Educational ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...
- CitationAppeal No. MLR-EXCUS-000-DIVV-APP-HAB-001-2014 dated 09/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant's reason, namely the collection of voluminous documents, was not good enough; the delay in such circumstances should have been condoned, and the impugned order rejecting the appeal on that basis is set aside with a direction to hear the appeal on the footing that the delay stands condoned.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MLR-EXCUS-000-DIVV-APP-HAB-001-2014 dated 09/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mysore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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
Karnataka Christian Educational Society Balmatta Mangalore 575 001 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore 7th Floor, Trade Centre, Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore 575 003 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B.G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate #520, Amruth Nivas, 7th Main, 13th Cross, RMV 2nd Stage, Dollars Colony, Bangalore - 560 094 For the Appellant
Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 30/03/2015 Date of Decision: 30/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20922 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that application for condonation of delay was filed belatedly and the reasons given by the appellant that the issue involved is collection of voluminous documents and therefore the delay occurred was not good enough, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. After hearing the learned counsel and after going through the impugned order, we find that we are unable to sustain the impugned order since in our opinion the learned Commissioner should have condoned the delay. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to hear the appeal treating the delay as condoned. Needless to say appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity before final order is passed. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 30.03.2015)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL 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