Tribunal rules in favor of appellants due to Department's delivery failure, leading to waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, accepting their argument that the appeal was filed within the stipulated period due to delayed awareness ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal rules in favor of appellants due to Department's delivery failure, leading to waiver of pre-deposit.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, accepting their argument that the appeal was filed within the stipulated period due to delayed awareness caused by the Department's failure to ensure proper addressing and delivery of the original order. The appeal was deemed timely, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit, granting of a stay petition, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal's merits.
Issues: Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) based on delay in filing appeal.
Analysis: The appellants contested the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing delay in filing. The learned Advocate argued that the appeal was not filed late, emphasizing that the date of communication for Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be counted from the date the original order was received, which was 8th September 2007. The appellant had informed the Department about a change of address, supported by several correspondences and a specific letter to the Deputy Commissioner. Despite these notifications, the order in original was addressed to the old unit address and affixed to the factory gate, leading to delayed awareness by the appellants. The learned SDR for the Department contended that the notice was served as per law, shifting the responsibility to ensure proper delivery to the appellants.
The Tribunal observed that all correspondence between 2002-03 with the Commissioner and Department occurred at the office address, not the unit's address. The appellants had proactively notified the Department about the address change, even referencing the show cause notice in their communication. Given the Department's failure to ensure correct addressing and delivery of the order in original, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that the date of receipt should be 8th September 2007. Consequently, the appeal filed on 2nd November 2007 fell within the 60-day stipulated period, warranting consideration on merits. The Tribunal proceeded to waive pre-deposit, allow a stay petition, and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal's merits.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
