2003 (10) TMI 572 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing
- Discrepancy in the date of receipt of the impugned order
- Validity of the affidavit submitted by the appellants
- Consideration of technicalities of law vs. administration of justice

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the dismissal of the appellants' appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal against the order-in-original, deeming it time-barred. The appellants argued that they received the impugned order on 10-6-2002 and filed the appeal on 28-6-2002, within the statutory period. The Respondent contended that the order-in-original was dispatched on 8-2-2002, and they had deposited duty and penalty subsequently. The Commissioner (Appeals) presumed the appellants received the order on or before 15-2-2002, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The Tribunal noted that the exact date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellants was crucial. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not specify when the order was received by the appellants, merely presuming it was before 15-2-2002. The appellants submitted an affidavit stating they received the order on 10-6-2002, which the Commissioner (Appeals) did not challenge. The appellants had no motive to delay filing the appeal, having already deposited duty and penalty promptly after receiving the order.

3. Emphasizing the importance of justice over technicalities, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, directing a re-hearing of the appeal on merits. It was highlighted that the appellants had acted in good faith by depositing duty and penalty promptly, indicating their willingness to resolve the matter. The Tribunal stressed that justice should prevail, and the appellants deserved a fair hearing on the merits of the case.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on the merits. The decision underscored the appellants' good faith actions in promptly fulfilling their financial obligations and the importance of ensuring justice is served, even if it requires setting aside technical legalities.