2017 (12) TMI 1597 - HC - Central Excise

Bombay High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision, Emphasizes Procedural Fairness

ISMT LIMITED Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., AURANGABAD

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals). The court found that the ... Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond period of limitation as per provisions of the Act, namely under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Held that:- The appellant discharged his burden of submitting appeals before the competent forum by placing on record necessary documents in support of his claim - The delay on the part of the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Exercise to forward the appeal paper book to the office of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) cannot be attributed to the assessee so as to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as time-barred. The matter is restored to Office of Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad for decision afresh on merit - Appeal allowed. Issues involved:- Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal based on the limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944Rs.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Facts: The appellant, a manufacturer of steel equipment, sought credit of duty paid on inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. An order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner for recovery of tax and penalty, which the appellant appealed against to the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Submission of the Appellant: The appellant's counsel submitted that the appeal, along with a stay application, was filed within the stipulated period. Documents were placed on record to show that the appeal copies were submitted and received by the office of the Assistant Commissioner.3. Opposition by the Respondent: The respondent's counsel argued that although the copy was received by the office, it was not received by the competent authority, i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), within the stipulated period.4. Court's Analysis: After reviewing the material on record, the court found that the appellant had submitted the appeal within the stipulated period before the appropriate authority. Documents, including an affidavit and communication from the courier service, supported the appellant's claim of timely submission.5. Judgment and Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was restored to the Office of Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit. The court emphasized the appellant's efforts to submit the appeal in a timely manner and cited a previous judgment to support its decision.6. Conclusion: The court found that the appellant had fulfilled the burden of submitting the appeal before the competent forum within the limitation period. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal expeditiously on its merits.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's decision regarding the dismissal of the appeal based on the limitation period.