9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or entertaining the appeal. On hearing the petitioner, we felt that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. So we heard learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative at length. We are disposing of the appeal. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows : Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 8708 and 9401 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Certain components/inputs were received free of cost by the appellant from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. While determining the value of goods manufactured utilising the inputs received from Maruti Udyog enhanced value was not included, in the sense that duty element, sales tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner did not entertain the appeals and examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the lower authority on merits, the appellate order is liable to be interfered with. 4. As stated earlier, adjudicating authority passed the impugned order on 26-2-1999. Departmental Representative placed before us the records maintained by that authority to show that copy of that order was sent by registered post to the assessee. Postal authorities were also addressed to get information regarding actual date on which the registered parcel was served on the assessee. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurgaon informed the departmental authorities that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 1-3-1999. We do not find any reason to doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal was correctly dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. According to the learned Departmental Representative, when the appellate authority s decision rejecting the appeal as time barred is found to be correct, this Tribunal cannot go into the merits of the claim that may be agitated by the assessee. This argument, we are afraid, cannot be accepted. Appellate authority has, in this case, rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. As a result of that, adjudicating authority s order got itself merged in the order of the appellate authority. In other words, the decision rendered by the adjudicating authority has to be taken as having been endorsed by the appellate authority as well. That decision, as endorsed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner (Appeals) was perfectly legal because the appeal having been filed beyond six months from the date of the communication of the order of the primary authority, the Commissioner had no power to entertain the same. That conclusion reached by him was unassailable. This being the legal position, this Tribunal cannot find fault with the disposal of the appeal. Appeal before the Tribunal has, therefore, only to be dismissed, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the party. In support of this argument, Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Central Board of Excise and Customs v. Ashok Leyland, Madras [1985 (22) E.L.T. 17 (Mad.)] was relied on. Assessee in that case challenged the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utside its territorial limits in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1124. The orders therein were passed by authorities constituted under the Customs Act, one within the territorial limits of the High Court and the appellate authority outside. Dealing with this issue, their Lordships observed that an appellate authority may do three things, (i) may reverse the order under appeal, (ii) may modify that order, and (iii) it may merely dismiss the appeal. In all these situations, the effect has been held to be the same. Their Lordships observed that the order of the appellate authority confirming the order appealed against is as efficacious as any other order of reversal or modification. What their Lord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Single Member of this Tribunal in Hans Metals Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur [2000 (117) E.L.T. 421(Tribunal)] dismissed the appeal before it holding that this Tribunal is not empowered to go into the merits straightaway without considering whether the appeal filed by the party before the first appellate authority was in time or not. This was so done even after observing It is well settled position that order-in-original merges with the order in appeal passed by the first appellate authority and the appeal against such an order is maintainable before the second appellate authority . When the adjudicating authority s order got merged in the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner whether on merit or on limitation, the said order is open to cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
