9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- Admittedly, petitioner was never called upon to file the same. In a similar matter in TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, [ 2024 (9) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , this Court had set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded it for de novo consideration. Dismissal of appeal on the ground of non-mentioning of the name of the Authorized Signatory - HELD THAT:- The non-mentioning of the name of the Authorized Signatory is a minor procedural defect. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 never called upon petitioner to rectify the same - In Jem Exporter v. Union of India [ 2023 (8) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] this Court held that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with the procedure without giving a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act, 1944. The assessee s appeal was dismissed on the ground that pre-deposit made via Form DRC-03 was not proper. Noticing that the issue of pre-deposit was an industrywide issue, this Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes to issue suitable clarification. The appellate orders were quashed and remanded to the appellate authority for de-novo adjudication. Petition disposed off. - K. R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sriram Sridharan a/w Ms Nishtha Shrivastava. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms Sangeeta Yadav. P.C. : 1. This Petition is impugning an Order-in-Appeal dated 22nd February 2024 (issued on 27th February 2024) passed by respondent No. 2. By the said Order-in-Appeal, petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any other proof of his being authorised signatory of Appellant. Appeal has been signed and verified by one Akshaya P. Herle. We find in the impugned order the Appellate Authority admits that an affidavit has been signed and verified by the same Akshaya P. Herle reiterating the arguments made during the personal hearing. In our view, if the Appellate Authority wanted to verify the authority of Akshaya P. Herle, he was duty bound to call upon Appellant, if he had any doubts with regard to the authority. In this case, in our view, if only the Appellate Authority had bothered to check the GST portal of Appellant, he would have found that Akshaya P. Herle was an authorised signatory. 2. When we brought all these to the notice of Mr. Mishra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the procedural defects. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 never issued any defect memo to petitioner. If, respondent No. 2 had only brought this to the notice of petitioner at the time of personal hearing, it would have been cured. 4. On the ground of delay in filing the appeals, Mr. Sridharan submitted that if only respondent No. 2 had considered the appeal memo, he would have realised that there was actually no delay and the appeal was within time. Mr. Sridharan stated that order-in-original dated 25th March 2022 was received via e-mail on 19th April 2022 and that hence, the time to file the appeal expired on 20th June 2022. Admittedly, the appeal was filed on 20th June 2022. If respondent No. 2 had only brought this to the notice of petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-deposit, there is enough evidence annexed to the petition that a sum of Rs. 7,89,09,672/- has been deposited and even the receipt is annexed to the petition. Therefore, to say that there is no pre-deposit in the impugned order is incorrect. 4. In the circumstances, Mr. Mishra, in fairness, stated that this Court may dispose the petition by quashing the impugned order and remanding it to Respondent No. 2 for denovo consideration. Ordered accordingly. 5. Respondent No. 2 shall give personal hearing to Petitioner once again, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 5 working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of Petitioner. If Respondent No. 2 is going to rely on any order or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication. On account of this Court s order in Sodexo (supra), the Board issued Circular dated 28th October 2022 clarifying that pre-deposit via Form DRC-03 would not be proper. In Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur v. Sapphire Cable and Services Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (8) TMI 1403, this Court upheld the CESTAT s order holding that the Circular dated 28th October 2022 would apply prospectively. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said order read as under: 4. After hearing the parties, preliminary objections by revenue was rejected because the CESTAT rightly concluded that the circular had come into force only on 28th October 2022 and the appeal had been filed much before the circular came into force. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
