2015 (1) TMI 20 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Delay of 20 days - Held that - appellant is a partnership firm and the main partner who was looking after the factory was on business tour therefore, there was a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) has not given the findings on the issue as on which date the order of adjudication was communicated to the appellant. He merely said that there is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal and the reason for causing delay is not satisfactory. He has also not described why the reason for the delay is not satisfactory to him. In these circumstances, as explained by the learned Counsel that the main partner who was dealing with the matter was on business tour and could not be filed appeal within the prescribed time of limitation therefore, I condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). With this terms the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Delay condoned.

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal on the ground of limitation.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Lack of findings on the date of communication of adjudication order.
4. Setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against an adjudication order dated 17-4-2010 before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 9-8-2012. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation, despite the appeal being filed within the condonable period of 20 days after the statutory period of 60 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the reason for the delay was unsatisfactory. The appellant challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.

2. The appellant, a partnership firm, explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the main partner being on a business tour. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide findings on the date of communication of the adjudication order to the appellant. As the reason for the delay was deemed satisfactory by the Tribunal, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was condoned. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits.

3. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal at that stage. The Tribunal granted a stay and proceeded with the consideration and final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the delay and found merit in the argument that the delay was justifiable due to the partner's absence on a business tour.

4. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration was based on the lack of specific findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the date of communication of the adjudication order and the unsatisfactory reasoning for the delay. By condoning the delay and remanding the matter, the Tribunal ensured that the appeal would be decided on its own merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a fair and just manner.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, including the grounds for dismissal of the appeal, the condonation of delay, the lack of findings on crucial aspects, and the ultimate decision to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

← Previous Next →