2020 (10) TMI 635 - HC - Central Excise

Direction to the opposite party to communicate/provide/supply a copy of the order within a stipulated time - HELD THAT - Since the dispute pertains to classification of the intermediary parts of hoists/gates of River barrages, radial gates, Penstock pipes, Embedded parts, Hoists and Hoist Supporting structures, which will have recurring effect on the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition with a direction to the opposite party to provide a fresh certified copy of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of (Appeals) to the petitioner, within a period of fifteen days hence, with liberty to the petitioner to now file their appeal against the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 21.12.2017 before Central Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Communication of order dated 21.12.2017 by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the petitioner.
2. Address discrepancy in the memorandum of appeal.
3. Impression of pending appeal before the Commissioner of (Appeals).
4. Direction for providing a fresh certified copy of the order.
5. Liberty to file appeal against the said order.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for the opposite party to communicate the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner, a government undertaking, had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of (Appeals) with an address mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. However, the copy of the order was sent to a different address, leading to non-receipt by the petitioner.

2. The address discrepancy in the memorandum of appeal was highlighted during the proceedings. Although the appellant's address was mentioned in one section, the address for sending notices was different. This led to confusion regarding the status of the appeal and the communication of the order to the correct address.

3. The petitioner was under the impression that its appeal was pending before the Commissioner of (Appeals) based on the address provided in the memorandum of appeal. This impression was maintained during the adjudication process before the Principal Commissioner until it was revealed that the appeal had already been decided by the Commissioner of (Appeals) on the mentioned date.

4. Considering the dispute's importance related to the classification of intermediary parts of various structures, the court deemed it appropriate to allow the writ petition. The court directed the opposite party to provide a fresh certified copy of the order dated 21.12.2017 to the petitioner within fifteen days. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the said order within thirty days from the receipt of the fresh copy.

5. The court allowed the writ petition to the extent of providing the fresh copy of the order and granting liberty to file an appeal. The original records were to be returned to the opposite party's counsel. Additionally, due to the ongoing lockdown for COVID-19, the counsel was advised to utilize the soft copy of the order available on the High Court's website for necessary proceedings.