N.K. Constructions vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAPPEAL NO. ST/85068/14 Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The first appellate authority, in deciding whether a belated appeal should be entertained, is bound to consider the reasons given for the delay and, where those reasons are found justified, to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits; a dismissal on limitation grounds without a proper assessment of the stated reasons is erroneous and warrants setting aside the order and remanding for a decision on merits after following the principles of natural justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. ST/S/92140/14 IN APPEAL NO. ST/85068/14 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AV(273) 266/2013 dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & ST (Appeals), Aurangabad.
For approval and signature:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
N.K. Constructions : Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & ST Aurangabad
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Sumeet Tholle, C.A. for appellant Shri A.B. Kolgod, Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondent
CORAM:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing : 10.02.2015 Date of Decision : 10.02.2015
ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran This stay petition is filed for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as service tax liability, interest thereof and penalties imposed.
2. After hearing both sides on the stay petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, after granting waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount involved, we take up the appeal for disposal.
3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that there was a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and the reasons given for delay are not justified. It is an admitted fact that the appeal has been filed on 25th day i.e. beyond the period of 60 days for filing appeal but which could be condoned by the first appellate authority. On perusal of the reasons given for belated filing of appeal, we find that the appellant has justified the delay in filing the appeal. In our considered view, the first appellate authority should have condoned the delay and dispose of the appeal on its merits. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original No. and dispose of the same on merits after following the principles of natural justice.
3. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated in open Court)
(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk
??
??
??
??
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