9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service of the order-in-original is held to be 17.07.2018, (certified copy), as assessee cannot file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), without certified copy. The appeal has been filed within 90 days from the date of service and the delay is hereby condoned - the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority, for decision on merits. - Excise Appeal No.50582 of 2019 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.51898/2021 - Dated:- 30-9-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri V.K. Singh, Advocate for the appellant Shri Pradeep Gupta, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s.JVM Plywood Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal, whereby the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector, Shri Rajendra Dangayach under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the aforementioned order-in-original was not served to the appellant. The Revenue as stated, had issued Recovery Notice/letter dated 20.04.2006. The service of which was denied by the appellant. There also appears a signature at the margin of the notice, which as per appellant does not belong to the Director or any officer of the appellant company. Thereafter, the Revenue stated that they had issued recovery certificate for Government dues under Rule 3 of Customs Rules, 1995 on 16.06.2006. The service of which was also denied by the appellant. 5. In the meantime, with respect to the tax dues for other periods amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was disposed of by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court with a direction to appropriate the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- deposited by the appellant and for filing appeal against the adjudication order no.25/2006 dated 27.06.2006. The appellant on 4.2.2016 vide challan No.32199 and 32212 deposited the total amount of ₹ 11,86,368/- against the demand disputed in this case. The appellant again made a request to the Revenue for issue of certified copy of the adjudication order no.22/2006, on 10.02.2016, which request was again repeated by letter dated 7.5.2018 mentioning that they have not been issued certified copy of the said order till date. On 14.05.2018, a photocopy of the adjudication order no.22/2006 was handed over to the Director, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd observed that the date of service of the order-in-original is 14.05.2018. Thus, the filing of the appeal on 15.10.2018 is beyond the prescribed period of filing appeal within 60 days and also beyond the power of condonation of 30 days. On such observation, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar, being delay beyond the power of condonation vested in the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. This Tribunal vide order sheet dated 23.03.2021 had called for an explanation from the Joint Commissioner regarding non-delivery of the order-in-original. In compliance, Revenue has filed clarification dated 10.05.2021, wherein it was stated that as the matter is very old and the jurisdiction has re-constituted during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorised Representative relies upon the impugned order. 12. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the fact of service of the photocopy on 14.05.2018 as well as application for certified dated 22.05.2018 and the issue of certified copy on 11.07.2018 and service of the same by post on 17.07.2018, are undisputed. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not excluding the period in obtaining the certified copy i.e. the period from 22.05.2018 till 17.07.2018. Further, in the facts and circumstances, the date of service of the order-in-original is held to be 17.07.2018, (certified copy), as assessee cannot file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), without certified copy. In view of aforementioned findings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
