2018 (5) TMI 1973 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of around 285 days in filing the present appeals - service of order - delay were on the ground that impugned order has not been received by them - HELD THAT - The order has not been received by them and infact it is their stand that same has not been received till date and they have procured a copy of the order from the advocate of other assessee - the delay is condoned. It is further seen that impugned order already stands set aside by the Tribunal in SHRI VK BHURARIA, M/S. VK ENTERPRISES, M/S. MULTIMETALS LTD. SHRI NITIN AGARWAL, SHRI MAHENDRA AMBALAL RANA M/S. MARUTI METAL INDUSTRIES SHRI SHRI SHRI AMIT GUPTA M/S. BRILLIANT METALS PVT. LTD., M/S. PROGRESSIVE ALLOYS INDIA P LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RESPONDENT ST, UDAIPUR 2018 (5) TMI 818 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - While dealing with the appeals of other appellants who are similarly situate to the present two appeals, the tribunal held that Revenue s case is not sustainable. COD application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Delay in filing appeals, non-receipt of impugned order, penalty imposed on first stage dealers.

Delay in Filing Appeals:
The judgment addresses the delay of around 285 days in filing the appeals. It notes that similar delays were experienced by other appellants due to non-receipt of the impugned order. The Tribunal had previously condoned such delays in other cases. Considering the appellants' claim of not receiving the order and having to obtain it from another assessee's advocate, the delay in filing the present appeals is condoned.

Non-Receipt of Impugned Order:
The appellants asserted that they had not received the impugned order and had to procure a copy from another party's advocate. The Tribunal had previously set aside the impugned order in cases involving similarly situated appellants. The judgment acknowledges the appellants' claim of non-receipt and aligns it with the previous decisions where delays were condoned due to the same reason.

Penalty Imposed on First Stage Dealers:
The penalties of ?1.60 lakhs and ?40 lakhs were imposed on two first stage dealers for allegedly issuing invoices without corresponding supply of inputs. The Tribunal, in a previous final order, set aside penalties imposed on other first stage dealers facing similar allegations. The judgment notes that since the issue has been decided and the impugned order has been set aside by the Tribunal, the present appeals are allowed. The penalties imposed on the appellants are also disposed of in light of the Tribunal's previous decisions.

This judgment highlights the Tribunal's consistent approach in condoning delays in filing appeals due to non-receipt of impugned orders, especially when multiple appellants are similarly situated. It also emphasizes the importance of aligning penalties with legal precedents and decisions, ultimately ensuring fair and just outcomes for the parties involved.