2015 (7) TMI 709 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Date of receipt of order - Held that - Order in original was served upon an employee of the appellant on 26th June, 2013 under Section 35-O of the Central Excise Act provides the proceeding for computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal and stipulates that the day on which the order was served has to be excluded. Therefore, while counting 60 days, 26th June, 2013 has to be excluded while counting the period of limitation. - appeal was served in the office on 26th August, 2013. The finding of the Tribunal that the appeal was presented on 27th August, 2013 is against the material on record. We are therefore, of the opinion that the appeal was filed within 60 days. - first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in holding that the appellant had misrepresented the fact that the order was served upon them on 28th June, 2013. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Rejection of application for refund
- Appeal filed within stipulated period under Section 85 of the Finance Act (2), 1994
- Misrepresentation of facts leading to dismissal of appeal
- Appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) and Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Interpretation of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act (2) of 1994
- Error in determining the date of appeal filing
- Manifest error of law in holding misrepresentation
- Liberal approach in handling the matter

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad dealt with the rejection of an application for refund by the appellant, which led to a series of appeals and subsequent rejections by authorities. The core issue revolved around the timeliness of the appeal filed under Section 85 of the Finance Act (2), 1994. The appellant contended that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of two months, while the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal rejected the appeal citing a delay of two days and alleged misrepresentation of facts regarding the date of service of the original order. The High Court analyzed Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, emphasizing the requirement to file an appeal within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order.

The Court scrutinized the timeline of events, noting that the original order was served on the appellant's employee on 26th June, 2013. Considering the provisions of Section 35-O of the Central Excise Act for computing the period of limitation, the day of service was to be excluded. The Court also highlighted discrepancies in the determination of the date of appeal filing by the Tribunal, ultimately concluding that the appeal was indeed filed within the stipulated 60 days. The judgment criticized the lower authorities for a manifest error of law in alleging misrepresentation by the appellant regarding the service date of the order.

Furthermore, the High Court advocated for a liberal approach in handling the matter, asserting that a delay of two days should not have been considered fatal. The Court opined that the explanations provided by the appellant clearly indicated no intentional misrepresentation. Consequently, the orders of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were quashed, and the appeal was allowed at the admission stage. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits after hearing all concerned parties. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting statutory provisions accurately and adopting a lenient approach in procedural matters.