9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd whereunder, “M/s. Global Services” was corrected as “M/s. Global Overseas”. This appears to be a subsequent correction, more particularly after the return of the cover. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. The very fact that the postal cover was sent to “M/s. Global Services” instead of “M/s. Global Overseas” itself supports the case of the appellant that they have not received the copy of the order within the statutory period so as to enable them to file the appeal before the Tribunal. - Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee. - C.M.A. No. 38 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2012 - D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ. Shri K. Jaya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to condone the delay, contended that the order copy was forwarded to another company and it was only from the said concern, the appellant received the copy, belatedly. 6. The Tribunal was of the view that change of address was not reported to the Commissioner of Central Excise and as such, the reason that the order was sent to different address cannot be considered as a valid reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected as time-barred. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court. 7. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal used its judicial discretion in the interest of justice while deciding the suf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. 12. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation. 13. The question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant by holding that the Tribunal failed to exercise its judicial discretion in accordance with the settled legal position with regard to the term sufficient cause . 14. In the result, the order dated 27 May, 2011, in Final Order No. 640/2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to number the appeal and decide the same on merits and as per law. 15. In the upshot, we allow the civil miscellaneous appeal. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1/2012 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
