2012 (6) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - dismissal of appeal dated 01.06.09 on ground of it being non-maintainable by Commissioner (Appeals) - assessee contended that order dated 23.02.09 was received on 17.04.2009, hence there was no delay in filing the appeal - Held that - It is found from the Range Superintendent s letter that the impugned OIO dated 23.02.09 was handed over to the authorized signatory of the Applicant on 17.04.2009, and the acknowledgement to that effect was also obtained. If the time-period is reckoned from the date of acknowledgement, i.e. 17.04.2009, the appeal was filed within the time-limit prescribed u/s 35 of the Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal. In this situation, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal due to time-limit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The Applicant/Appellant filed an Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal that dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable for being filed beyond the time-limit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The contention was that the appeal was dismissed without granting a hearing, and it was argued that the impugned Order-in-Original was handed over to the appellant on 17.04.2009, with an acknowledgment obtained. The appellant claimed that if the time-limit was reckoned from the date of acknowledgment, there was no delay in filing the appeal. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appeal was filed after the time-limit, as the Order-in-Original was issued on 27.02.2009, and the appeal was filed on 01.06.2009.

The Tribunal found from the Range Superintendent's letter that the impugned Order-in-Original was indeed handed over to the appellant on 17.04.2009, and the acknowledgment was obtained. Considering this, the Tribunal held that if the time-period was reckoned from the date of acknowledgment, the appeal was filed within the prescribed time-limit under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity before the case is decided. The Tribunal allowed the Appeal by way of remand, and the Stay Petition was also disposed of accordingly. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court.

This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to time-limits prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the significance of providing a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their case before a decision is made. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh decision underscores the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in legal proceedings.