TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal allowed as timely pursued rectification efforts don't count towards limitation period</h1> The appeal was filed against an order dismissing it as untimely. The appellant argued that time spent pursuing rectification should not count towards the ... Time limitation - dismissal of appeal on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory time limit including the condonable period prescribed in the Central Excise statute - Held that: - the appellant was diligently perusing its remedy for resolving the dispute, the appellant was not guilty of negligence or lapse or inaction for delaying the process in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) within the stipulated time limit prescribed in the statute. Thus, the case of the appellant should be governed u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the time exhausted in perusing the matter with the adjudicating authority should be excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period provided in the statute for filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - since the appeal was filed by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 03.01.2011, upon receipt of the communication from the adjudicating authority on 28.12.2010, filing of the appeal is not barred by limitation of time - matter remanded back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:The appeal in question was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appellant's appeal as being filed beyond the statutory time limit. The appellant contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal, providing a detailed date chart of events leading to the filing of the appeal. The appellant argued that the time taken for pursuing rectification of mistake in the adjudication order should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The appellant relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to support their argument.The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the impugned order and cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize that the Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone a delay up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days. After hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the correspondences exchanged between the appellant and the original authority. It was noted that the appellant diligently pursued its remedy for resolving the dispute and was not guilty of negligence or lapse in delaying the filing of the appeal. The Member (Judicial) opined that the case should be governed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the time spent in perusing the matter with the adjudicating authority should be excluded for computing the limitation period. Therefore, the filing of the appeal on 03.01.2011 was not barred by limitation.The Member (Judicial) found that the appellant's case was squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and distinguished it from another case cited by the Departmental Representative. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits, with the appellant being granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
