Appeal dismissed as time-barred; incorrect order receipt date; lack of personal hearing; remanded for reconsideration.

The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to an incorrect date of receiving the order and the lack of a personal hearing. The appellant argued that the order was actually received earlier than stated, and the lack of a personal hearing violated natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, set aside the dismissal order, and remanded the case to the Commissioner(Appeals) for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to rectify errors and present their case.

---

---

Issues: Appeal dismissed as time-barred due to incorrect date of receiving the order and lack of opportunity for personal hearing.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Time-barred Appeal: The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which was partly disallowed by the original authority. The appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) was dismissed as time-barred because the date of receiving the order was mentioned as 20/01/2013 in Form ST-4, while the original order was dated 24/12/2012. The Commissioner(Appeals) relied on Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, which limits the power of condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the order was actually received on 07/01/2013, as evidenced by an acknowledgment countersigned by an Inspector of Excise. The appellant contended that the appeal should have been filed by 06/03/2013, and since it was filed on 27/03/2013, it was within the time limit for condonation of delay by the Commissioner(Appeals).

2. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) erred in not granting a personal hearing, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to present the correct date of receiving the order. The lack of a personal hearing was deemed a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and emphasized that the denial of a personal hearing burdened the appellant with unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner(Appeals) had the power to condone the delay up to one month and that the appellant's appeal was within the permissible time frame for such condonation.

3. Remand and Directions: The Tribunal, convinced by the appellant's arguments, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand. It directed the Commissioner(Appeals) to consider the delay application filed by the appellant, allowing the appellant to amend the delay petition and Form ST-4 to correct the date of receiving the order. The Commissioner(Appeals) was instructed to dispose of the case as per law after considering the corrected information. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting a fair opportunity to the appellant to present their case and rectify any errors in the documentation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred, and remanded the case to the Commissioner(Appeals) for further consideration in light of the corrected information and the principles of natural justice.

---