2015 (10) TMI 2597 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - mode of communication - Held that - the adjudication order has not been served on the appellant in the manner and mode presented in Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, it has to be construed that the order was not communicated to the appellant within time as claimed by the Department. Hence, for the purpose of computation of limitation, I accept the date of receipt of order as claimed by the appellant. Since, after receipt of the order, the appeals filed within the statutory time limit, I am of the view that there is no delay in filing the appeals - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeals for being filed beyond condonable time limit
- Service of adjudication order
- Computation of limitation for filing appeals

Analysis:
The judgment deals with appeals challenging the dismissal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being filed beyond the condonable time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals stating that the time limit for filing had lapsed and could not be condoned. However, the Tribunal, in its analysis, found that the adjudication order had not been served on the appellant as per the requirements of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order was not communicated within the stipulated time, as claimed by the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the date of receipt of the order as claimed by the appellant for the purpose of computing the limitation period. As the appeals were filed within the statutory time limit after the receipt of the order, the Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeals.

Furthermore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing reasoned and speaking orders on the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of affording the appellant a due opportunity of personal hearing in this process. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case. The judgment highlights the significance of proper service of adjudication orders and the correct computation of limitation periods in matters of appeal before the Tribunal, ensuring fair and just proceedings for all parties involved.