Sai Krishna Minerals Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 06-13-2013 dated 21/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) , MYSORE ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

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?

Sai Krishna Minerals Pvt Ltd Near Venugopalkrishna Temple, 3rd Cross, Patel Nagar, HOSPET - 583201 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Sreenivasalu, CA SASS & CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT KRISHNA MANSION, #15, SURVEY NO.97/2D, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR MARTHAHALLI BRIDGE, OUTER RING ROAD, MARTHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560037 KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 06/03/2015

Date of Decision: 06/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20562 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Since the appeal has not been decided on merits; but has been rejected on the ground that the delay cannot be condoned, the requirement of predeposit is waived and appeal itself is taken up for final decision.

2. The appellant sought condonation of delay (COD) of 30 days in filing the appeal which has been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reason given. He has observed that the fact that companys Directors mother was bedridden and admitted to hospital and hence administrative matters of the company was not taken care of cannot be considered as a direct proximately evident factor for the delay caused and it cannot be considered as reasonable ground.

3. The learned CA submits that appellant is a private limited company owned by the family and the Director and Managing Director are brothers and their mother was seriously ill during November 2011 and because of this there was a delay in filing the appeal.

4. In this case I consider that the delay could have been condoned. If the Directors are brothers and the mother was ill for a month, it calls for a lenient view. It is settled law that while condoning the delay, a liberal view has to be adopted and in this case the delay is condonable and reasonable ground has been advanced. When Directors mother is ill, delay in filing the appeal can happen and has happened.

5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the issue on merits treating the delay is condoned by this Tribunal. I make it clear that no opinion has been expressed by me on merits as regards the observation of the Commissioner on the appeal filed by the Revenue which was also considered in the impugned order. The Commissioner(Appeals) may pass a fresh order on both the appeals treating the earlier order as non-existent. The appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before the matter is finally decided.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja 3