M/S. Chromaprint India Print Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore
- CitationAppeal No. 265/2013 dated 26.08.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period of limitation for filing an appeal runs from the date on which the adjudication order is received by the appellant, and where the appellant establishes from the postal acknowledgment that receipt occurred on a later date, the appeal is within time if filed within sixty days of that receipt. Where the appellate authority has dismissed an appeal solely on the ground of limitation, computed from the date of the order rather than the date of its receipt, without deciding the merits, the appellate tribunal will set aside the impugned order and remit the appeal to the appellate authority for decision on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 265/2013 dated 26.08.2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore).
For approval and signature
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
M/s. Chromaprint India Print Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance
Shri Kandasamy, Consultant, for the applicant
Shri L. Pannerselvan for the respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.04.2015
FINAL ORDER No. 40409 / 2015
The appellant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 82,331/- along with interest and penalty. They are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed their appeal on merits. After dispensing the stay application, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
2. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that the adjudication order dated 30.03.2013 was received by them on 08.05.2013. They have filed appeal on 02.07.2013 which is well within 60 days time limit for filing appeal. In respect of his claim, he placed photocopy of the registered post acknowledgement due dated 08.05.2013. He further submits that at the time of hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) that authority has not raised this question and therefore, they have not given opportunity to submit this before the Commissioner (Appeals), whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dismissed the appeal only on limitation.
3. Ld. AR says that the Commissioner (Appeals) before deciding the issue has sent letters dated 08.07.13 and 13.08.13 to the appellant but, they have not replied to it. In a rejoinder, the ld. Advocate submits that they have not received the letters dated 08.07.13 and 13.08.13.
4. Heard both sides and on perusal of records it is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal only on limitation by taking the order-in-original and date of filing the appeal whereas, I find from the postal acknowledgement slip that the order was dispatch on 06.05.2013 and as per the postal remarks it was received by them on 08.05.2013 which is evident on the postal acknowledgment slip. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant has filed the appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the appeal is filed within the prescribed time limit. Since, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decide the case on merits and only dismissed on limitation. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits.
5. Stay application is allowed and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER
BB
1
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