2023 (6) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - refund claim on account of value addition deductions for the period of June, July and September 2014 - HELD THAT - The respondent has not been able to produce any material conclusively showing that the order dated 25.03.2019 was served on the same day i.e. 25.03.2019 itself. The dispatch register produced by the respondent only shows the dispatch and there is no material on record showing that the appellant was served the copy of the order on 25.03.2019 itself - Moreover, the authorized representative of the company Jugal Kishore Sharma has filed the affidavit stating that he got the copy of the said order by hand on 18.06.2019 and the same was communicated to the company on 22.06.2019 and thereafter admittedly the appeal was filed within the statutory period of limitation. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation is not sustainable in law - case remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeal) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order dismissing appellant's refund claim on limitation without considering merits.

Facts of the case:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing 'Air Conditioner,' claimed exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. The refund claim of Rs. 12,89,370/- for value addition deductions in June, July, and September 2014 was rejected by the range officer. The appeal against this rejection was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on limitation without delving into the merits.

Arguments by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the dismissal based on limitation was incorrect as the order was received on 18.06.2019 and the appeal was filed within the statutory period. An affidavit by the authorized signatory confirmed the receipt date as 18.06.2019, and the appeal was filed accordingly.

Arguments by the Respondent:
The Respondent maintained that the order was dispatched on the same day it was dated, as evidenced by the dispatch register. They argued that the appeal was time-barred based on this dispatch record.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the Respondent failed to conclusively prove that the order was served on the same day it was dated. The affidavit by the company's representative stated that the order was received on 18.06.2019 and communicated to the company on 22.06.2019, leading to the timely filing of the appeal within the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the merits of the case.