9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal filed beyond 90 days, delay in filing appeal, date of filing appeal, remand for decision on merits.
Appeal filed beyond 90 days: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as it was filed belatedly after 90 days, stating lack of power to condone any delay beyond that period. However, the appellants provided evidence that the appeal was sent within the limitation period via Certificate of Posting on 04.06.2005, following the Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2005. They also re-submitted the appeal papers to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs office on 28.06.2005, with a seal affixed for receipt. Delay in filing appeal: The Counsel explained that due to an error, the appeal papers were initially filed before the wrong office on 28.06.2005, instead of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s office, both located in the same building. The papers were later forwarded to the correct office, leading to the dismissal of the appeal after a hearing. The Counsel argued that the date of receipt by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs office should be considered as the filing date, as the appeal was submitted within the time limit. Date of filing appeal: Upon review, it was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the filing date on when his office received the papers from the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs office, rather than the initial submission date of 28.06.2005. Recognizing this discrepancy, the Tribunal determined that if the latter date is considered, the appeal was indeed filed within the required timeframe. As the case was not decided on its merits, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on the Principles of Natural Justice. This judgment highlights the importance of procedural accuracy in filing appeals within specified timeframes and the need for fair consideration of submission dates to ensure justice is served.
|
