Mohd. Saleem Contractor vs Cce & Cus., Raipur

No. ST/COD/57839/2013, ST/COD/55368/2014, ST/Stay/57838/2013 and ST/57251/2013-CU(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 05/ST/RPR-I/2012 dated 28.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur]

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

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?

2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?

Mohd. Saleem Contractor Appellant

Vs.

CCE & Cus., Raipur Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Priyanaka Goel, Advocate - for the Appellant

Shri Govind Dixit, D.R. - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

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

F. Order No. 50651/2015

Per Justice G. Raghuram :

Heard the Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the ld. DR representing the respondent/Revenue. This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 11 months in preferring the appeal.

2. Appeal was preferred on 3.5.2013 against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur dated 28.2.2012.

3. It is pleaded in this application that the impugned order was forwarded to the appellant address as Sh. Mohd. Saleem Contractor, Village & Post Rampura Kala, dist. Dehradun (Uttrakhand), but was not received by the appellant. The appellant received a copy of the order only on 23.2.2013 from the officer of the Supdt. Central Excise range, Rajnangaon and the appeal was filed within the specified time if reckoned from the date of receipt of the copy of the order i.e. 23.2.2013. It is further pleaded that the appellant received other letters posted by the department at the address provided in the memorandum of appeal but not the impugned order. It is further pleaded that on 4.2.2013 the appellant received a letter from the office of Supdt., Central Excise range Rajnangaon seeking an explanation for not filing service tax return and not remitting service tax on the consideration received for the period prior to 24.2.2012. Thereafter the appellant approached the Supdt. pleading that he had not received any order from the appellate Authority. On 23.2.2013, the appellant learnt that an order was passed by the appellate Commissioner on 28.2.2012. After the appellant made efforts to obtain a copy he eventually received the same on 23.2.2014. Hence the delay of 11 months be condoned is the plea.

4. In the appeal memorandum, before the lower appellate authority, the appellant herein furnished his address to which the appellate order was communicated by registered post acknowledgement due. In the memorandum of appeal preferred to this Tribunal however the petitioner set out his address as Mohd. Saleem Contractor, C/o Bhoramdeo Sahkari Sakkar Utpadak Karkhana Maryadit, Kawardha Distt. Kabridham (Chhattisgarh). Notice of hearing of the stay application scheduled on 15.7.2013 was forwarded to the address of the appellant as furnished in the memorandum of appeal filed before this Tribunal. This notice was however returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement left.

5. As the impugned, lower appellate order was forwarded to the appellants address as furnished in the memorandum of the appeal filed before that appellate authority, there is a deemed service of the impugned order on the appellant, in view of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. This position in law is covered by the following judgements :

(1) V. Raja Kumari Vs. P. Subbarama Naidu and Another  AIR 2005 SC 109.

(2) CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd.  2010 (255) ELT 321 (P&H).

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no satisfactory cause pleaded for condonation of an inordinate delay of 11 months in preferring the appeal. Hence COD is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM

1