9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (8) TMI 46 - AT - Service TaxCommissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar, by observing that the impugned order was served on the appellant on 07.12.06 whereas the appeal was filed on 22.01.08 - appellant s contention that no order was served upon them on 07.12.06, is acceptable moreover, order was sent on a wrong address - above finding cannot be upheld - before rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, it was mandatory to allow an opportunity of hearing to the appellant
Issues: Time bar for filing appeal, opportunity of hearing before rejecting appeal
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue revolves around the rejection of an appeal on the ground of time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing a delay in filing after the order was served. However, the appellant contests this, stating that the order was not served on the correct address, rendering the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) factually incorrect. The appellant also argues that they were not granted a hearing before the appeal was rejected on the basis of time bar. Citing a case from the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, the appellant asserts that it was mandatory to provide an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the appeal due to limitation. The Appellate Tribunal, noting the absence of a hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter for a fresh decision on the point of limitation and subsequently on merit. The Tribunal emphasizes that if the appeal is deemed to have been filed within the stipulated time, the appellant must be given a chance to present their case before a final decision is made. The judgment concludes by disposing of the stay petition and appeal in accordance with the above terms. This judgment highlights the importance of providing an opportunity of hearing before rejecting an appeal based on time limitations. It underscores the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in such matters. The decision to remand the case for a fresh decision ensures that the appellant's rights are protected and that a just outcome is reached after due consideration of all relevant factors.
|
