M/S. Shreeji Buildcon vs C.C.E.&S.T., Jaipur-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.22(RDN)ST/JPR-I/2013, dated 27.02.2013 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]

For Approval &Signature :

Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

M/s. Shreeji Buildcon Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E.&S.T., Jaipur-I Respondents

Appearance

Ms. Asmita A Nayak, Advocate - for the appellants

Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the respondents

CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.50321/2015, dated 10.02.2015

Per Mr. Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal along with stay application against the impugned order, whereas its appeal has been dismissed as time barred. The facts of the case are that the appellant received the adjudication order dated 26.03.2011 and against such order they filed the appeal before the ld. commissioner (Appeals) on 19.09.2011. As per section 5 of the Finance Act, 1994, an aggrieved person can file an appeal against the adjudication order within three months before the commissioner (Appeals) and the same can be extended by another three months if sufficient cause is shown for causing the delay. In this case, admittedly the appellant has filed the appeal beyond the statutory period of three months before the commissioner (Appeals), but they have filed the same within further period of three months of condonable delay showing sufficient cause for filing. These facts are not in dispute. As the ld. commissioner (Appeals) has not consider the sufficient reason for causing the delay and dismissed the appeal as time barred.

2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal can be disposed of along with the stay petition. Accordingly, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, the appeal has been taken up for hearing.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a builder and the Builders Association of India was pursuing the matter of taxability of service tax on their activity before the CBEC and the Association asked the appellant not to file the appeal. But on 13.09.2011, the said Association directed the appellant to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay was caused. Ld. counsel prayed that the appeal has been filed within the condonable period and the delay may be condoned.

4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative opposed the submissions of the ld. counsel and submits that admittedly the appellant has filed the appeal on the directions of the Builders Association of India, but this has not prevented the appellant to approach the judicial forum to contest the impugned demands. Therefore, the ld. commissioner (Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal as time barred.

5. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the appeal has been filed within the condonable period of delay and the reasons causing the delay have also been explained to the satisfaction of this Bench. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and in the interest of the justice, remand the matter back to ld. commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits. The stay application and the appeal are disposed of in the above manner.

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-2-