9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cross objections by the appellant in computing the limitation. 2. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is within the short compass as to whether the date of filing the cross objections (which is not the correct Form) has to be taken into account while considering the issue of limitation, in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner, it is not necessary to go into detailed facts. The order-in-original dated 31.01.2019 was received by the appellant on 8.2.2019 and instead of filing the appeal in Form No.E.A.-1 under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [The Act, 1944], they filed the cross objections on 15.03.2019 before the Commissioner (Appeals), Alwar. Subsequently, vide their letter dated 25.05.2019 (received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is only a procedural error, which can be rectified and does not warrant dismissal of the appeal. Secondly, in such cases, the limitation would relate back to the date when the original memorandum (though not in the correct form) was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision of the Single Member in CCE Vs. Nisha Chemicals, Bombay [1986 (26) ELT 809 (Tribunal)] has dealt with the appeal in Form-C.A.-3, which was not the valid form as it was meant for an appeal under Section 129A(1), whereas the appeal was filed under Section 129A(2) and it was observed that the forms are meant for helping the authorities in the disposal of the appeals and the applications and they cannot be interpreted to act as a hindrance to such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] and the issue considered was whether to treat the representation made by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the order-in-original as an appeal to assail the order-in-original. In the said case, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 21.04.2016 that an appeal could be preferred before the Commissioner of Customs and, therefore, the appellant preferred the appeal in the appropriate format on 15.12.2016, however, the appeal was dismissed, as being time barred. In the circumstances, the Court considered, whether the party aggrieved by the order-in-original has lodged its grievance before the appropriate forum within the prescribed time limit. The Court considering the representations sent by the petitioner found that they had sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative for the Department in the case of Devi Chand Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow [2013 (5) TMI 512-CESTAT-New Delhi] - where the Tribunal has held that if such cross objections are held to be appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the period of limitation prescribed under the law would get circumvented and as such, the cross objections cannot be held to be appeals. The said decision of the Tribunal is of the year 2012 and subsequently, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Planet POP Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra) passed on 5.1.2017 has binding effect and, therefore, following the same, we decide the present appeal in favour of the appellant. The same learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
