9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 11-11-2008 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) (Final Order No. A/642/WZB/2008-CII/CSTB, Stay Order No. S/698/WZB/2008-CII/CSTB and Misc. Order No. M/569/WZB/2008-CII/CSTB dt. 11.11.2008 certified on 18.12.2008 in Application No. ST/COD-2067/2008 ST/Stay/1547/2008 and Appeal No. ST/204/2008) Shri M.H. Patil, Adv. for Appellants. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for Respondents. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)] - The present application is for condonation of the delay of 3 months and 9 days involved in filing the captioned appeal. A copy of the impugned order was received by the appellants on 06.03.08 and the appeal was filed on 16.09.2008 with the above delay. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal be condoned. It is submitted by the Ld. SDR that the entire story of the appellants is only liable to be rejected in view of the preamble to the impugned order, which reads: "Any person aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal may file, under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal to Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), WZB, Mumbai, in form CA-3". It is pointed out that further requirements of such an appeal to this Tribunal were also specified in the preamble. It is submitted by the Ld. SDR that, had the appellant-Corporation applied its mind to the preamble to the impugned order, it would have occurred to them that the correct remedy in law against the said order was before this Tribunal. In his rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, we note that the Corporation had received a copy of the order-in-original on 06.03.2007 and that an appeal against the same was filed with the Superintendent of Service Tax on 05.04.2007. Later on, it was realized that this appellant not reach the Commissioner (Appeals). A fresh appeal in the prescribed format was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.02.2008. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) took this appeal as delayed with reference to the date of receipt of the order-in-original. The explanation of the Corporation was that the appeal filed with the Superintendent was within time and, therefore, the fresh appeal also should be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the earlier appeal was filed with the Superintendent. Alternat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been deemed to have been filed on 05.04.2007. In this view of the matter, there was no delay whatsoever on the part of the Appellant-corporation in preferring appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner. Ld. Appellate Commissioner will have to deal with that appeal on merits, of course, subject to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. A speaking order shall be passed on all issues in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. 5. In order to enable the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the assessee's appeal in the manner specified above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the present appeal by way of remand. Stay application also stands di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
