M/S Godavari Drugs Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. E/928/10-Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The first appellate authority may condone a delay of sixteen days in filing an appeal before it, and where the reasons given for the delay are acceptable, the appeal must be restored and decided on merits after observing the principles of natural justice, rather than dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(28)18/2010 dated 04.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
M/s Godavari Drugs Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner, Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent
Appearance:
None for Appellant
Shri Ashutosh Nath, A.C. (AR) for Respondent
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing: 16.06.2015
Date of Decision: 16.06.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(28)18/2010 dated 04.02.2010.
2. Advocate on records has filed an application for adjournment on the ground of his ill health.
3. On perusal of records, I find that the issue lies in narrow compass accordingly I reject the application for adjournment and take up the appeal for disposal.
4. Heard the learned departmental representative and perused records.
5. On perusal of records, I find that the first appellate authority as dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant before him on the ground of delay, the appeal is filed by the appellant before the first appellate authority belatedly by a period of 16 days. The appellant had also preferred an application for condonation of delay, which has been not accepted by the first appellate authority.
6. I find that the delay in filing by the first appellate authority is 16 days and within the period that can be condoned by the first appellate authority. In my considered view the first appellate authority should have condoned the delay of 16 days and should have disposed the appeal on merits. Be that as it may, I find that the reasons put for by the appellant before the first appellate authority for delayed filing the appeal are acceptable. I condone the delay of 16 days is filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and direct the Ld. Comm. (Appeals) to restore the appeal to its Original No. and decide the issue on merits after following principles of natural justice.
6. The appeal is allowed by the way of remand to the first appellate authority.
(Dictated in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)
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