M/S. Shree Krishna Laxmi Steel Udyog ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.45/JSR/2012 dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi.)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

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 Authorative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?

M/s. Shree Krishna Laxmi Steel Udyog Pvt.Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur Respondent (s)

Appearance:

Shri P.R.Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri S.N.Mitra, AC(AR) for the Revenue

CORAM:

Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing :- 15.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 21.09.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75504/2015

Per Shri H.K.Thakur.

1. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Order-in-Appeal No.45/JSR/2012 dated 10.04.2012 was decided against the appellant which has been argued to have not been received. That subsequently appellant requested for a copy of the said Order-in-Appeal which was given to them on 05.01.2015. That thereafter appellant field the appeal on 19.03.2015 within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of the Order-in-Appeal on 05.01.2015. It was accordingly argued by the appellant that there is a delay of less than 30 days in filing the appeal therefore the same may be condoned.

2. Shri P.R.Kumar, ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that after receipt of Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012 it was observed that address of the appellant was N.S.-116, Phase-VI against which the said Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012 indicated the address to be NS-106-Phase-IV. That due to wrong address mentioned on the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012 the same must have been delivered to some other address and must have been returned to the postal department.

3. Shri S.N.Mitra, ld.AC(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that in this case personal hearing was held by the first appellate authority on 04.01.2012 and appellant did not enquire about the outcome of the personal hearing held till 05.01.2015. It was his case that appellant has not explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012 was dispatched to the appellant by Speed Post, but the same has been argued not to have been received by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that vide the letter dated 01.01.2015 appellant requested for copy of Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012. It was not explained by the appellant as to how they came to know about the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012 when the same was not received by them. Secondly it was appellants appeal before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for which personal penalty was held on 04.01.2012. No enquiries were made by the appellant to know the outcome of their appeal filed before the first appellate authority for nearly three years. In view of the above observations appellant has not been able to explain the circumstances under which the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.04.2012 was not received by them when the same was also not returned to the department by the postal authorities. Accordingly COD application filed by the appellant is rejected and consequently appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed.

(Pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2015.)

(D.M.MISRA) (H.K.THAKUR) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) sm

3 Appeal No.EA-75295/15