2008 (9) TMI 268 - AT - Service Tax

Defective appeal - Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on ground that they are not being signed by the principal officer of the company and the appeal memorandum is signed by some person - strong force in appellant s contention that these defects were not intimated to the appellant, when they appeared for personal hearing. Since the defects, are curable one and can be corrected, Commissioner (Appeals), should reconsider the issue after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and also after giving sufficient time for filing proper authorization for signing the appeal memorandum - appeals are allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty; Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on technical grounds without considering merits; Correct application of Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules in appeal dismissal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved three stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appeals against the order of the adjudicating authority, dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on technical grounds, were brought before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that all three applications raised an identical issue and decided to dispose of them through a common order.

The appellant's counsel argued that the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on technical grounds without addressing the merits of the case. The counsel contended that the defects in the appeals, such as incorrect signatory details, were curable and should not have led to dismissal. On the other hand, the SDR representing the respondent submitted that the provisions of Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules were correctly applied by the Commissioner (Appeals) in dismissing the appeals.

The Tribunal, after allowing the waiver of pre-deposit, proceeded to consider the appeals for disposal. Upon reviewing the impugned orders, the Tribunal observed that the signatory of the appeals had signed on behalf of M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. instead of M/s. Alfa Laval Separation, Sweden, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that the defects were not communicated during the personal hearing and were curable. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that the Commissioner (Appeals) should reconsider the issue after granting a personal hearing to the appellant and providing sufficient time for correcting the authorization for signing the appeal memorandum.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fair reconsideration of the matter by the Commissioner (Appeals) after addressing the curable defects in the appeals.