Virchow Biotech Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ...
- CitationAppeal No. 104/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appellate authority that rejects an appeal as time-barred, on a delivery date that the appellant has not admitted, must afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the question of delay before a final order is passed; an order made without such an opportunity is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 104/2013(H-IV) ST dated 25/07/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, HYDERABAD-II (Appeal). ]
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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Virchow Biotech Pvt Ltd Sy.no.172, Gagillapur Village, Gutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist, RANGA REDDY DIST - 00 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. M. RAJENDRAN ADV PLOT NO.206, VELMURUGAN STREET, KRISHNAMACHARI NAGAR, VALASARAVAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600087 TN For the Appellant
Mr. Pakshi Rajan (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 20/02/2015
Date of Decision: 20/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20436 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
The matter has been coming up frequently before this Tribunal and today is the sixth occasion. On all the occasions, adjournment was granted to enable the advocate to produce evidence about receipt of the order-in-original. The appeal has been rejected in the impugned order on the ground that appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. It is the claim of the department that order-in-original was served on 9.6.2012 and as evidence, department has forwarded photocopy of the postmasters docket register. However, the learned counsel contests the same.
2. On going through the order-in-appeal, it is seen that Commissioner (A) has accepted the date of delivery as 9.6.2012 and on that ground he has held that appeal which was filed on 22.7.2013 was beyond the condonable period and has rejected. However, no opportunity was given to the appellant and in my opinion, it was appropriate for the learned Commissioner (A) to give an opportunity to the appellant for personal hearing especially when there was no admission of the delayed filing of the appeal. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that appellant should be given reasonable opportunity to present their case about delay before a final order is passed. It is also made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the issue under consideration.
(Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 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