M/S. Mepco Speciality Prodcuts vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 171-173/CE/DLH/2014 dated 11.08.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), & Service Tax, New Delhi]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

M/s. Mepco Speciality Prodcuts Appellants

Madhya Pradesh Metal Powder

The Metal Powder Company Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi I

Appearance:

Shri Ravinder Singh, Consultant for the Appellants

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 14.1.2015

FINAL ORDER NOs. A/ 50047-50049 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders dismissing their appeal as time barred.

2. The facts of the case are that appellants received a communication through ACES dated 21.3.2014 for revocation of their Central Excise registration. Against that order the appellant filed appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.5.2014. As no application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal holding that as per section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant is required to file the appeal within 60 days of adjudication order of the Commissioner, which they failed to do so, accordingly their appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants are before me.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is ACES communication to the appellant dated 21.3.2014 intimating them that their Central Excise registration was revoked but there is no proper order having been served as per section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, they have not received the adjudication order. Therefore, in these circumstances, observations made by learned Commissioner (Appeals) that they have filed the appeal beyond the period of limitation, therefore, is not sustainable. To support his contention he relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of J K Oil Industries vs. CCE, Jammu [2009 (243) ELT 624 (Tri-Del)].

4. On the other hand, learned AR submits that in this case, it is admitted fact that appellant has filed the appeals after 62 days of the communication of the order before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and also appellant has filed the appeal without any application for condonation of delay as per Central Excise Act, 1944, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed their appeals as time barred.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

6. On perusal of the records, I find that the compliance of the provisions of section 37 C of the Act has not been done by the Revenue to serve the order as per provisions of section 37C of the Act to the appellant. In these circumstances, I hold that relying on the decision of J K Oil Industries (supra) the appellants have not been served the adjudication order, therefore dismissal of appeals by learned Commissioner (Appeals) as time barred is not sustained. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside, matter is sent to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the contentions of the appellants on merits and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with the law. Appeals are allowed in the above terms. Orders to be given Dasti.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

4