2012 (12) TMI 985 - HC - Customs

Delay in filling Appeal Order not communicated in person Petitioner contended that he had not received order-in-original for long time and therefore had not filed appeal earlier Tribunal by impugned order rejected appeal holding that signature contained in acknowledgment slip matched with admitted signature of petitioner Held that - true that Department relies on acknowledgment however, it was not clear why order was communicated in person as opposed to normal practice of serving orders through RPAD Tribunal was not quite justified in recording that signature in acknowledgment slip was same as those of admitted signatures of partner In larger interest of justice, proceedings remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), who shall hear appeal on merits Impugned orders of Tribunal quashed Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to orders of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Time-barred appeal - Validity of acknowledgment - Rectification application dismissal - Remand to Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on merits.

The judgment pertains to a petition challenging orders of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner had initially challenged an order-in-original before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner contended non-receipt of the order-in-original, while the Department relied on an acknowledgment dated 13-4-2004. Subsequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the matching signature in the acknowledgment slip with that of the partner. A rectification application was also dismissed. The High Court observed discrepancies in the signatures but refrained from delving deeper into the issue. Instead, in the interest of justice, the Court remanded the proceedings to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a hearing on merits, thereby quashing the impugned orders of the Tribunal.

The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the time-barred appeal due to a delay in filing before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had argued non-receipt of the order-in-original, while the Department relied on an acknowledgment dated 13-4-2004. The High Court noted the discrepancy in the signatures but refrained from making a definitive conclusion on the authenticity of the acknowledgment. The Court, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the proceedings to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a hearing on merits, thereby setting aside the Tribunal's orders.

Another crucial issue in the judgment was the validity of the acknowledgment dated 13-4-2004, which was relied upon by the Department to establish receipt of the order-in-original by the petitioner. The High Court observed differences between the signatures in the acknowledgment slip and the admitted signatures of the partner. While refraining from determining the authenticity of the acknowledgment, the Court decided to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merits, thereby quashing the Tribunal's orders based on the acknowledgment.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the dismissal of the rectification application by the Tribunal. The petitioner had sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, which was subsequently dismissed on 24-6-2011. The High Court, after considering the totality of facts and circumstances, decided to remand the proceedings to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merits, thereby setting aside the Tribunal's orders and providing relief to the petitioner in the interest of justice.