2019 (7) TMI 1243 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 - time limitation - HELD THAT - It can be safely inferred that the date of receipt of the order-in-original i.e., order dated 11.07.2018 is 14.01.2019 and not any earlier date. There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that vide the impugned order, first respondent, who is the First Appellate Authority, in exercise of quasi judicial powers has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without examining the matter on merits. The impugned order is set aside without expressing any opinion or view on the merits of the matter. It is being set aside for the purpose of facilitating the matter being examined on merits by the First Appellate Authority namely the 1st respondent - petition allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Dismissal of statutory appeal on the ground of limitation.
2. Discrepancy in the date of receipt of the original order.
3. Examination of records to determine the date of receipt.
4. Addressing the issue of proper delivery based on the address provided.
5. Setting aside the impugned order for further examination on merits.

Analysis:

The central issue in this case revolves around the dismissal of a statutory appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of limitation. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal based on the perceived date of receipt of the original order, which was crucial in determining the timeliness of the appeal. The writ petitioner contested this decision, claiming that the original order was received at a later date than stated by the authority, leading to a discrepancy in timelines.

The discrepancy in the date of receipt of the original order was a key point of contention. The writ petitioner argued that the order was received on 14.01.2019, contrary to the date mentioned by the Appellate Authority. This discrepancy necessitated a thorough examination of records to ascertain the actual date of receipt and to validate the petitioner's claim. The absence of concrete evidence such as the envelope further complicated the matter, highlighting the importance of proper documentation in legal proceedings.

Another significant issue raised was the adequacy of the address provided for delivery. The court noted that the address described in the postal acknowledgment card was insufficient for proper delivery, emphasizing the importance of accurate and detailed addresses for effective communication and legal processes. The discrepancy in the address details underscored the need for clarity and precision in such matters to avoid confusion and potential delays.

In light of the discrepancies and the need for a more thorough examination of the case on merits, the court decided to set aside the impugned order. The decision was made to allow the First Appellate Authority to reexamine the appeal on its merits without expressing any opinion on the substance of the case. This step was taken to ensure a fair and comprehensive review of the matter, leading to a more informed and just outcome based on the legal provisions and factual circumstances.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the First Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The decision aimed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness by ensuring a thorough examination of the case without prejudice, emphasizing the importance of procedural accuracy and adherence to legal requirements in statutory appeals.

← Previous Next →