M/S Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/55644/2014-E[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has declined to consider a condonation application on a medical certificate without assessing it properly, and the appellant's explanation for a 26-day delay is found satisfactory, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice and the matter remanded for decision on merits, with the appellant entitled to a personal hearing before disposal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 137/RPR-I/2014 dated 25.06.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None appeared for the Appellant
Mr. G R Singh DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/ Decision. 04.09.2015
Final Order No. 54047 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 wherein, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Raipur has not considered the delay condonation application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before him. The said order was passed pursuant to the remand direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 4.2.2014.
2. I find from the impugned order that medical certificate produced by the appellant has not been considered in his proper prospective. Considering the fact that the appellant was not in a position to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame and the reason of delay explained before the Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfactory, I am of the view that the delay can be condoned in the interest of justice.
3. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits. Needless to say, that the appellant shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing before disposal of the matter.
(operative part of the order pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
2 | Page
E/55644/2014-Ex[SM]
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