TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals dismissed as time-barred due to dispute over order communication date. Commissioner criticized for not allowing delay explanation.</h1> <h3>DEE PHARMA LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD</h3> DEE PHARMA LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 366 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Appeal dismissed as time-barred- Delay in filing appeals- Opportunity to explain delay not granted- Date of receipt of adjudication order- Dispute over date of communication of orderAnalysis:The judgment involves two appeals filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), where the appeals were dismissed as time-barred. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty on the appellants, leading them to file appeals against the Adjudication order. The main contention revolved around the timeline of events, specifically the receipt of the Adjudication order and the subsequent filing of appeals.The appellants argued that the Adjudication order was passed on 31-10-2000, issued on 23-11-2000, and received by them on 25-1-2001 at their office address. They further stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not grant them an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals. On the other hand, the Revenue considered the date of communication of the adjudication order as 22-12-2000 when it was pasted at the factory premises of the appellants, which were closed at that time.The Tribunal found that since the appellants received the adjudication order on 25-1-2001 at their office address, there was no delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a hearing opportunity to the appellants before dismissing the appeal as time-barred. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable, set aside, and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeals' merits after affording a proper hearing to the appellants.In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering the actual date of receipt of the adjudication order and granting appellants a fair opportunity to explain any delays in filing appeals before dismissing them as time-barred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
