Sam Travels Hp Car Care vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & St

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI

Appeal No.ST/S/40637/2014 in ST/40450/2014

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal NoCMB-CEX-000-APP-223-12 dt. 19.10.2012. dt. passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore]

Sam Travels HP Car Care Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Coimbatore Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Naveena, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri K.P.Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :

Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing/Decision : 22.6.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40675/2015

Per R. Periasami

As the issue lies on a short compass, after dispensing with the requirement of predeposit, with the consent of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing .

2. The Commissioner (Appeal) has dismissed the appeal on limitation as the appellants failed to seek condonation of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the facts in para-12 of the OIA.

3. Ld. Advocate submits that they have already paid entire duty amount of Rs.31,506/- and produced copy of challan vide e-receipt dt. 18.2.2005 and also payment of Rs.33,006/-vide e-receipt dt. 9.3.2015 against penalty. She submits that though the OIO mentions address of the appellant in the preamble as "No.362, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore 641043" whereas the order was despatched to another address at No.5/171, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-108 and therefore appellant could not receive the order. Subsequently they obtained the copy of the OIA. Therefore, they could not file appeal before LAA in time. However, they filed the appeal within the condonable period.

4. Ld. AR reiterates the findings in the impugned order.

5. After hearing both sides, we find that there is sufficient cause shown by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The due date of filing appeal is 17.11.2011 whereas they have filed the appeal on 20.1.2012. The only ground mentioned in the order for dismissing the appeal is that appellants failed to file COD application before the Commissioner (Appeals). Otherwise the appeal is within the powers of Commissioner (Appeals) for condonation. Accordingly, the delay in filing of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned. Appeal is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the case on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Stay application is disposed. Impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER

gs 2