2011 (7) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Delay in filing the appeal - Limitation - Appeal is rejecting on the point of limitation, the Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the impugned order of Jt. Commissioner was passed on 20.02.07, whereas the appeal has been filed on 9.3.098 i.e. after a gap of 24 months - It is only ultimately the the Superintendent vide letter dt.29.12.08 (received by the appellant on 12.01.09), that a copy of the order was supplied to them - However, the ld. Advocate submits that in terms of said order, it seems that the order was pasted in their factory, which was closed - find that without considering factual position, the Commissioner(Appeals) has simply dismissed the appeal on limitation by observing that the same stand filed after a period of 2 years - Accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh, after taking into account the above factual position.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the Stay Order regarding deposit amount for appeal hearing.
2. Rejection of appeals by the Commissioner(Appeals) on the point of limitation.
3. Delay in filing appeal due to lack of receipt of the impugned order.

Compliance with Stay Order:
The appellants were directed to deposit Rs.5 lakhs for their appeal hearing, of which Rs.2,73,486 had already been deposited. The remaining balance was deposited later, complying with the Stay Order. The Tribunal found that the appellants had fulfilled the condition of the Stay Order.

Rejection of Appeals on Limitation:
The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeals of M/s Miltex Laminates and Shri Anant Shah on the grounds of limitation. However, the appeal of Shri S.D. Kulkarni was decided on merit. The Commissioner observed that the appeals were filed after significant delays, with one being filed 24 months after the impugned order. The appellants argued that they were not aware of the order as they did not receive it despite attending hearings. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had dismissed the appeals without considering the factual position and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, allowing the appellants to present evidence to support their claim that the appeals were not time-barred.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellants claimed that they only received a copy of the impugned order after significant delays, as it was pasted in their closed factory. They argued that the appeal was filed within 2 months of receiving the order. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in receiving the order and remanded all three appeals to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a fresh decision, instructing to consider the factual position before deciding on the limitation issue. The appellants were permitted to refer to previous Tribunal decisions and legal precedents to support their argument that the appeals were not time-barred.

This judgment primarily addressed the compliance with the Stay Order, the rejection of appeals on the basis of limitation, and the delay in filing the appeal due to the delayed receipt of the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the factual circumstances before deciding on the limitation issue and allowed the appellants the opportunity to present evidence supporting their claim that the appeals were not time-barred.