Kundu Brothers vs Commr. Of Customs- Silliguri

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 54/SLG/2013 dated-20/12/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-III), Kolkata)

For approval and signature of:

DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE 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?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?

Kundu Brothers APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Customs- Silliguri RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

NONE FOR APPELLANTS Sri S.P. Pal, Appraiser (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENTS CORAM: DR. D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 05.01.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75004/2015

Per DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.10,10,625/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 114 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The applicant through its letter dated 30th December, 2014 requested that the matter may be heard on merit on the basis of submission advanced in their appeal memorandum.

3. The applicant in their written submission stated that the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has dismissed their appeal on the ground of delay of 09 days in filing the appeal before him. It is submitted that the delay was due to locating a good consultant in kolkata, as they are not aware of the provisions of filing the appeal. It is further submitted that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay of 09 days and decided the appeal on merit as the delay was bonafide.

4. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepts that the delay of 09 days was within the condonable limit of Ld. Commr. (Appeal). He has not objection in condoning the delay and remanding the case to the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) for deciding the issue afresh.

5. After considering the submission of both sides We find that the Appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit the Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

6. We find that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has not decided the case on merit but dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. Further, we find that the delay of 09 days caused in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has been explained by the appellant to be attributable towards locating a consultant in Kolkata as they are not aware with the procedure of filing appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals).We find force in the submission of the appellant. Consequently, the delay of 09 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remit the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding all issues afresh. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition disposed off.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court) (DR.I.P.LAL) (DR. D.M. MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER k.b/-

Customs Appeal No.71243/2013

3