M/S. Viral Builders vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/10451/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a first appellate authority decides an appeal, including the question of condonation of delay, without taking into consideration a timely written request for adjournment of personal hearing that was acknowledged by its office, the omission amounts to a breach of the principles of natural justice, and the resulting order is liable to be set aside. Where the first appellate authority's order is set aside on that ground, the matter is to be remanded to the appellate authority for fresh determination of the condonation of delay, and the appellant must be afforded an opportunity to explain the delay before that determination is made.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-CCE-SRT-I/SSP-187/U/S/35-A dated 05.12.2012, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Surat)
M/s. Viral Builders : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 01.05.2015
ORDER No. A/10499 / 2015 Dated 01.05.2015
Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
When this appeal was called out of hearing, Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, (Advocate) appeared on behalf of the appellant. It was his case that there was delay of 60 days which was condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals), as per existing provisions. He submits that in Para 3 of the OIA dated 05.12.2012, the first appellate authority has given a finding that no one is appeared on behalf of the appellant and no application for adjournment request is received. Learned Advocate brought to the notice of the Bench a letter dated 29.11.2012 under which the Advocate of the appellant requested for adjournment due to unavoidable reasons he is not able appear for personal hearing on 29.11.2012 and another suitable date may be given. The said letter has been acknowledged by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) Surat on 29.11.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that a letter for adjournment of personal hearing was submitted by the appellant which was not taken into consideration by the first appellate authority for deciding the appeal and condonation of delay. There is thus, violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the first appellate authority is required to be set-aside and the same is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding on condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Needless to say that appellant should be given an opportunity to explain the case regarding condonation of delay.
3. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals).
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL
3
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