2021 (3) TMI 1276 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed on the ground of time limitation only - the order in original dated 2nd March 2006 was made available to the appellant only on 17th July 2018 that too after repeated letters since the year 2012 till the year 2018 - HELD THAT - Department has delayed the dispatch of order in original dated 2nd March 2006 by 12 years. This delay is quiet shocking in view of the mandate upon the Department to make the copy of order available to the parties concerned at the earliest so as to give them an opportunity to avail the remedy of appeal if required. It has mandatorily to be informed to the appellant by the Department that appeal if any may be filed within a period not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. Right to legal remedies is otherwise a statutory right of the litigant. The delay of 12 years on part of the Department in making the copy of order to the appellant has tremendously curtailed the said right of the appellant. It is deemed important that the explanation from the respective Officer i.e. Joint Commissioner Jaipur be called for about not delivering the order pronounced to the appellant for more than 12 years. The Officer is directed to appear in person on 27th April 2021 to explain the noticed lapse on his part. In case by that date the physical hearings are not resumed the officer concerned has to mark his presence in person virtually - Matter be heard on 27.04.2021.

Summary

Issues: Delay in delivery of order, Curtailed right to appeal

Analysis:
1. Delay in Delivery of Order: The appellant contested the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation due to the delay in receiving the original order. The appellant highlighted that the order dated 2nd March, 2006, was only made available to them on 17th July, 2018, after repeated requests since 2012. The Department was directed multiple times to provide proof of service of the adjudication order, and it was revealed that the order was never dispatched despite being directed on 28th February, 2006. The delay of 12 years in delivering the order severely impacted the appellant's right to appeal within the statutory timeframe of 3 months from receipt of the order.

2. Right to Appeal and Legal Remedies: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of informing parties promptly about orders to enable them to exercise their statutory right to appeal. Citing the case law of Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Anr., it was reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory right that should not be curtailed without explicit statutory provisions. The delay in delivering the order without any explanation for over 12 years was deemed unacceptable, as it significantly hindered the appellant's legal remedies and right to appeal.

3. Direction for Explanation: In light of the observed delay and its impact on the appellant's rights, the Tribunal directed the respective Officer, the Joint Commissioner, Jaipur, to provide an explanation for the prolonged delay in delivering the order. The Officer was summoned to appear in person on 27th April 2021 to clarify the noted lapse. Additionally, if physical hearings were not resumed by that date, the Officer was required to attend virtually. The Departmental Representative was tasked with facilitating the necessary arrangements for the Officer's appearance, ensuring accountability for the delay and addressing the curtailed right to appeal due to the prolonged delay in delivering the order.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT DELHI highlights the critical issues of delay in delivering the order and the subsequent impact on the appellant's right to appeal, underscoring the significance of timely communication of legal decisions to uphold the parties' statutory rights and access to legal remedies.