9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 701 - AT - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - time limitation - Held that - in view of the affidavit submitted by the appellant stating that the adjudication order was not received by the appellant prior to 25-6-2010 there is no other option but to accept the submission of the appellant that the adjudication order was received by it on 25-6-2010 and thereafter within the stipulated time frame provided in Section 85 ibid the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus there is no delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Appeal against dismissal on grounds of limitation
Analysis: The appeal was directed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the basis of being beyond the 3-month limitation period provided in Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that they received the order-in-original on 25-6-2010 and filed the appeal within 3 months of receipt. The appellant's advocate referred to letters requesting the adjudication order for filing appeals, which were not specifically addressed by the Department. An affidavit was also filed stating that the order was not received before 25-6-2010. The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not assert that the adjudication order was served within a reasonable time frame. The letters requesting the order were not considered by the Department. Considering the affidavit stating the order was received on 25-6-2010, the Tribunal accepted that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned order after providing the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court by the Member (J) of the CESTAT, New Delhi.
|
