Suchem Laboratories vs Commissioner Of Customs(Appeals). ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 500/2004 MCH dtd. 9/9/2004 and 501/2004/MCH dated 9/9/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai-I]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

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 : 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?

=======================================================

Suchem Laboratories :

Appellants

VS

Commissioner of Customs(Appeals). Mumbai-I :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. Hemendra Shah, Partner for the Appellants Shri. D.K. Sinha, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 20/8/2015 Date of decision 20/8/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 500/2004 MCH dtd. 9/9/2004 and 501/2004/MCH dated 9/9/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai-I, wherein Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appellants appeal on the on the ground of time bar without going into merit of the case.

2. We heard both sides.

3. On the reading of the impugned orders we observed that the original orders received by the appellant on 27/9/2003. In the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) were filed on 27/11/2003 which as per the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is more than sixty days from the date of communication of the order and no sufficient cause has been submitted by the appellant and held that appellant is fatally hit by the limitation. We find that there is delay of only one day in filing the appeal beyond the sixty days. However over and above sixty days, the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to accept the appeal in another thirty days. In our view Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) merely because delay of one day should not have been dismissed the appeal as time bar. On the contrary he should have condoning delay of one day in the interest of justice and should have been decided the appeal itself on the merit. We therefore set aside the impugned orders and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear appeals on merit and pass reasoned order on merit. Appeals are allowed by way of remand needless to say that appellants should be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing.

(Operative part pronounced in court)

P.S. Pruthi Member (Technical) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk

3