CESTAT Chandigarh: Appeals Allowed Due to Lack of Proof of Service

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH allowed the appeals filed by the appellants against the dismissal of their appeals as time-barred. The Tribunal noted the lack of proof of service of adjudication orders and the delay in filing appeals. It favored the appellants due to the absence of evidence of service, condoned the delay in filing appeals, and remanded the matters back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass orders on merits. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a review based on merits.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred; Lack of proof of service of adjudication orders; Delay in filing appeals; Commissioner (Appeals) not passing orders on merits.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, the appellants appealed against impugned orders where the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the order of finalization of provisional assessment had not been served on the appellants, and there was no proof of service of adjudication orders available. Due to this lack of evidence, the Tribunal favored the appellants, especially since they had sought information through an RTI application and filed the appeal promptly upon receiving the adjudication order. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), except for one appeal which had a slight delay of 7 days beyond the statutory period of 60 days, but still fell within the condonable period of one month.

Moreover, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed orders on merits in the cases under consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with instructions to pass orders on merits. As a result, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring that the cases would be reviewed based on their merits. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court, signifying the formal conclusion of the proceedings.

---