Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 057/2013-14 dated 09/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Servic
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may set aside an appellate order that dismissed an appeal as time-barred, where the appellant was told at the personal hearing to file a condonation of delay application, the appellant's representative agreed to do so, and no such application was filed, and it may remand the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to the appellant to file a condonation of delay application within one month of receipt of the order, for decision by that authority on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 057/2013-14 dated 09/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, MYSORE ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI 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
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Hassan Division, B.M. Road HASSAN - 570011 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Mysore S1-S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570011 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None PRADYUMNA G.H. ADVOCATE C/O. KENTREE CONSULTANTS NO.371, 8TH MAIN, SADASHIV NAGAR, BANGALORE -80 For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR)
For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 26/03/2015
Date of Decision: 26/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20842 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, we have heard the learned DR and have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner (A).
2. It is seen that when the appellant appeared before the Commissioner (A) for personal hearing, he was intimated that there was a delay in filing the present appeal and they should file a condonation of delay application. The Consultant appearing for the appellant agreed to do so. However, it is seen that no COD application was filed by them and appeal came to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
3. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (A) with a direction to the appellant to file COD application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the present order. The same would be decided by the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, the stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner. (Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 2
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