2014 (10) TMI 824 - HC - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - Whether the Tribunal has taken a highly technical view in dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground that they are defective and whether an opportunity needs to be granted to the appellants to cure the defect and prosecute the appeals - Held that - Hearing the learned counsel for the parties that an opportunity needs to be granted to the appellants to cure the defects in filing the appeals so that the appeals filed by the appellants against the imposition of the penalty could be prosecuted. It is stated on behalf of the appellants that the certified copies of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were dispatched to the Tribunal by the appellants and the appellants were not aware that an objection in regard to the non-filing of the certified copy was raised in the matters. Moreover there is reason to believe the case of the appellants that only one of the appellants was informed about the defects in filing the appeals and the other appellants were not aware of the same. In any case since the appellants have shown their willingness to cure the defects as early as possible it would be necessary to grant an opportunity to the appellants to cure the defects in filing the appeals. - Appeal allowed with costs - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as defective.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in various businesses, challenged orders of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, which dismissed their appeals under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as defective. The appellants contended that they had paid the Service Tax with interest for the disputed period, although there was a delay, and that the penalty imposed was unjustified. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals due to defects in filing, which the appellants claimed to have already cured by dispatching certified copies of orders to the Tribunal. The appellants sought an opportunity to rectify the remaining defects to prosecute the appeals.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the defects mentioned in the impugned orders were already rectified, and the appellants had taken steps to address the issues. They emphasized that the penalty imposed was substantial, and justice demanded an opportunity to rectify the defects. On the other hand, the respondents supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the appeals were rightly dismissed due to unresolved defects. They proposed that if the appellants were given a chance to rectify the issues, costs should be imposed on them.

After hearing both parties, the Court identified a substantial question of law regarding whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals on the grounds of defects was too technical and if the appellants should be allowed to rectify the issues to proceed with the appeals. The Court acknowledged that the appellants had shown willingness to rectify the defects promptly and were not fully aware of the issues raised. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them an opportunity to rectify the defects within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the appeals, quashing the impugned orders subject to the payment of costs within a stipulated period. The appellants were directed to rectify the defects in the appeals promptly. No further costs were imposed in the case, considering the circumstances.