Sigmalon Equipments Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/101/2011 dated 06-07-2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-1)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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?

====================================================== Sigmalon Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1 Respondent

Appearance: Shri Suresh Singh C.A. for Appellant Shri B.Kumar Iyer, Supdt. (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 08/09/2015 Date of Decision : 08/09/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/101/2011 dated 06-07-2011.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly. We find that the appellant had filed the appeal on 23-05-2011 claiming that the order in original was received on 24-2-2011, while the first appellant authority has come to a conclusion that order in original dated 25-08-2009 was deemed to have been served on the appellant on the same date when it was dispatched by registered post. We find that in order in appeal, at paragraph no. 9, the first appellate authority has recorded that order in original was sent to appellants by post on 25-08-2009, to the address available on records but the same was returned by postal authorities with the remark (Left). It is seen from records that this position is not disputed. It is also seen from the records that even after the order in original was received back with postal remarks, no other alternative mode of serving the order was resorted to, as provided in section 37 B of the Central Excise Act 1944. It is also undisputed that the appellant was served upon a copy of the order in original on 24-02-2011, after he made various correspondence with the authorities. In our view, the stand of the first authority to hold that the order in original was served on the appellant on 25-08-2009, is incorrect, especially when the postal authorities has returned the envelope with remarks of LEFT and no alternative mode of service was resorted to deliver the order in original. In our view there was no delay in filling the appeal before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original number and to reconsider issue afresh after following principles of natural justice.

4. Appellate allowed by way of remand to the first appellate authority.

(Dictated in Court)

(C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

akp 1 3 APPEAL No.ST/560/11-Mum