9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 842 - AT - Service TaxPeriod of limitation - Appeal filed belatedly - Appellant contended that they have not received the order-in-original on time - Held that - the stand of the first authority to hold that the order-in-original was served on the appellant on 25-8-2009, is incorrect, especially when the postal authorities has returned the envelope with remarks of (LEFT) and no alternative mode of service was resorted to deliver the order-in-original. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded back to the first appellate authority to restore the appeal to its original number and to reconsider issue afresh after following principles of natural justice. - Appeal allowed by way of remand
Issues Involved:
Appeal against rejection on grounds of belated filing due to incorrect service of order-in-original. Analysis: The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/RKS/101/2011, dated 6-7-2011. The appellant claimed to have filed the appeal on 23-5-2011 upon receiving the order-in-original on 24-2-2011. However, the first appellate authority rejected the appeal as belated, stating that the order-in-original dated 25-8-2009 was deemed served on the same date it was dispatched. The first appellate authority mentioned that the order was sent via post on 25-8-2009 but returned with a remark (Left). Despite this, no alternative mode of service was attempted as required by Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant eventually received a copy of the order-in-original on 24-2-2011 after corresponding with the authorities. The Tribunal found the first authority's decision to consider the order served on 25-8-2009 as incorrect, given the returned envelope and lack of alternative service attempts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to restore the appeal and reconsider the issue following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal by remanding it to the first appellate authority was based on the incorrect determination of the service date of the order-in-original. The Tribunal noted the lack of alternative service attempts after the initial postal return of the order and emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal ensured that the appeal was not dismissed on the grounds of belated filing due to the erroneous service determination. The remand to the first appellate authority was deemed necessary to restore the appeal to its original status and to reevaluate the issue at hand with due consideration to principles of natural justice. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis highlighted the discrepancies in the service of the order-in-original, leading to the incorrect rejection of the appeal as belated. By emphasizing the procedural requirements and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal rectified the error and remanded the matter for a fair reconsideration by the first appellate authority. The decision aimed to uphold the appellant's right to a proper hearing and a just determination of the appeal without being prejudiced by a flawed service assessment.
|
