2009 (5) TMI 727 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the Final Order passed by CESTAT regarding communication address provided by the appellant and its impact on the appeal timeline.

In this case, the appellant, M/s. ITI Ltd., sought a speaking order from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore, but received a letter instead of a speaking order. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to a delay of 93 days beyond the statutory filing period of 60 days. The appellant then appealed to the CESTAT, arguing that the communication address provided was incorrect, leading to the delay. The CESTAT, in its Final Order, mentioned that blame cannot be shifted to the department if the correct address was not provided. The appellant contended that the Corporate Office address was not provided to the department, contrary to the CESTAT's observation. The appellant submitted evidence showing the correct officer's name and address in the appeal paper book. The CESTAT rejected the appellant's request for rectification, stating that both the Corporate Office and the Plant were in the same location, and the communication being received at the Corporate Office did not warrant a rectification of the Final Order.

The key argument revolved around the communication address provided by the appellant and its impact on the timely filing of the appeal. The appellant claimed that the address provided was incorrect, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. However, the CESTAT noted that both the Corporate Office and the Plant were located in the same place, and the communication being received at the Corporate Office did not invalidate the order. The CESTAT emphasized that the appellant's officers should have been more diligent in appealing to the Commissioner (Appeals) in time, considering the proximity of the Corporate Office and the Plant. The CESTAT found no factual mistake in the Final Order and rejected the request for rectification, citing the appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal within the stipulated timeline.

The CESTAT's decision highlighted the importance of providing accurate communication addresses and timely filing of appeals. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the incorrect address leading to the delay, the CESTAT emphasized that the proximity of the Corporate Office and the Plant should have enabled timely action on the appeal. The rejection of the request for rectification underscored the CESTAT's stance on the appellant's responsibility to ensure timely and accurate communication with the concerned authorities. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural diligence in legal matters and the implications of communication inaccuracies on the outcome of appeals.