2006 (1) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of Commissioner (A) on the ground of limitation.
2. Dispute regarding the penalty amount imposed in relation to confirmed duty amount.
3. Lack of clear findings on when the appellants received the copy of the order.
4. Appeal remanded back to Commissioner (A) for fresh adjudication on the penalty amount.

Issue 1: Appeal against the order of Commissioner (A) on the ground of limitation.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (A), Mumbai-III, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Order-in-Original was passed on 24-11-1997, but the date of issue was shown as 8-1-98. The assessee paid the confirmed duty amount in 2001 after receiving a letter demanding payment. The Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred without a clear finding on when the appellants received the copy of the order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that there was no ground for presumption that the appellants received the order promptly, given the delay in payment and lack of evidence of receipt within the limitation period.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding the penalty amount imposed in relation to confirmed duty amount.
The assessee had no dispute about the confirmed duty amount but contested the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed by the Commissioner (A) as excessive in relation to the duty amount. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (A) for fresh adjudication on the penalty amount, emphasizing that the appeal was filed within the time limit after the appellants gained knowledge of the order.

Issue 3: Lack of clear findings on when the appellants received the copy of the order.
The Range Superintendent's report indicated that the order copy was sent by registered post, but there was no specific finding on when the appellants received it. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (A)'s dismissal of the appeal as time-barred based on this incomplete information to be erroneous. The appellants claimed they were unaware of the order until the letter demanding payment in 2001, indicating a lack of receipt within the limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants filed the appeal within the limitation period after gaining knowledge, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

Issue 4: Appeal remanded back to Commissioner (A) for fresh adjudication on the penalty amount.
The Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the Commissioner (A) for a fresh adjudication on the penalty amount, emphasizing that the appeal was filed within the time limit. The remand order clarified that any delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the Commissioner (A) was directed to decide on the penalty imposition based on merits. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for fresh adjudication on the penalty amount, confirming the imposition of the penalty.

---