M/S. Target Print vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.CMB-CEX-000-APP-265-13, dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs,
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The limitation period for an appeal against an order-in-original runs from the date on which that order is served on the appellant, not from the date the order was passed; the date of passing is therefore immaterial unless and until the order is communicated to the appellant. Where the record is unclear as to the date of service and the date of passing of the order-in-original is inconsistent between documents, the question of limitation cannot be resolved on the papers, and the matter must be remitted to the appellate authority to ascertain the date of service after affording the appellant a fair opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CMB-CEX-000-APP-265-13, dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore]
M/s. TARGET PRINT APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri S. Ramachandran, [No vakalat on file] Cons.
For the Respondent Shri M. Rammohan Rao, JC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 06-08-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.40971/2015
Shri S. Ramachandran, learned consultant on behalf of Shri S. Kandaswamy, consultant engaged in this case says that appellant haws sought adjournment. But the same has not been received in this office.
2. Learned departmental representative explains that the controversy in this appeal relates to limitation in filing of the appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). He invites attention to page 18 of the appeal folder carrying the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) indicating the date of passing of the Order-in-Original as 30.03.2012 and date of filing of appeal was 02.07.2013. Claim of the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was that the order was received on 08.05.2013 and two months had not expired by 02.07.2013.
3. Page no.20 of the appeal folder carrying the Order-in-Original was perused. That shows the Order-in-Original was passed on 30.03.2013 but not 30.03.2012. This is one possibility of confusion by this. Law is well settled that the date of service of an order on the appellant is the requisite date for counting limitation. Therefore, date of passing of the Order-in-Original is immaterial to law unless that come to see the light of the day. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remanded back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the record and ascertain the date of service of the order on the appellant to count limitation granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He shall proceed to deal the matter on merit as required under law, if he is satisfied on limitation.
2. In the result, the stay application is disposed and appeal is remitted to Commissioner (Appeals). (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 08-08-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 06.08.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 06.08.2015
Fair Order Typing 08.07.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
2 E/S/42251/2013 and E/42365/2013
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