M/S Analog Devices India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 678/2013 dated 20/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), BANGALORE]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL 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

M/s Analog Devices India Pvt. Ltd 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Tower-D, RMX Infinity, No.3, Old Madras Road, BANGALORE  560016. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Ms. RUKMANI MENON NO.128, 'A' WING RAHEJA ARCADE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 095 For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 09/07/2015 Date of Decision: 09/07/2015 CORAM :

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21544 / 2015

After hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal stands dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. As per the facts of records, the order-in-original was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26.7.2011 and was sent to the appellants address at 7th Floor, C&D Corporate Towers, Diamond District, Airport Road, Bangalore-560008. However, as per the appellants, the said order was not received by them as they had changed their address. The fact of change in the address was intimated to the Deputy Commissioner by their letter dated 3.6.2010 based upon which their ST-2 registration was also amended. As such, it is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the fact of change of address was very well known to the Revenue and in the circumstances, the Revenue should have sent the order at their new address.

2. Subsequently, when the appellant attended personal hearing before the Deputy Commissioner in December 2011, in respect of another case, they came to know the fact of passing the present impugned order. They immediately informed the Revenue by their letter dated 20.12.2011 that they have not received any such order and accordingly, made a request to supply a copy of the same to enable them to take further steps. The copy of the order was physically handed over on 19.1.2012 and the appeal was filed on 12.4.2012, i.e. within three months from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In such a scenario, it is the contention of learned advocate that there is no reason for the Revenue to doubt about the actual date of communication of the order.

3. After having gone through the entire correspondence placed before me, I find that admittedly, there was a change in the appellants address and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was sent to the old address. The appellants have taken due care, by informing the Revenue about their change of address and placing the same on the new address. In the absence of any evidence to show that the order was actually served upon them prior to 19.1.2012, I am of the view that the date of handing over the order personally to the appellant on 19.1.2012 has to be treated as correct date of communication. The appeal is filed within three months and is well within time. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

(Pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

/vc/