1988 (8) TMI 237 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal directs timely appeal filing, stresses procedural fairness.

KHIRA STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

KHIRA STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 330 (Tribunal) Issues: Appeal barred by time due to procedural defects.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The appeal was initially rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds that it was barred by time. The appellants had filed an appeal on 20-4-1987, enclosing various documents, including the order by the Assistant Collector dated 10-2-1987. The appellants requested the Collector (Appeals) to consider their appeal, but due to defects such as improper form and lack of court fee stamp, no action was taken. Subsequently, in October 1987, the appellants rectified the defects and filed an appeal in proper form. The Collector (Appeals) passed the impugned order without acknowledging the initial appeal filed within the limitation period. The appellants argued that they should have been given an opportunity to rectify the defects if any were found in the original appeal.The Collector (Appeals) contended that the communication filed on 20-4-1987 was not an appeal but only a letter, justifying the rejection of the appeal filed in October 1987 as it was beyond the stipulated period. However, the Tribunal noted that the communication challenged the Assistant Collector's order and contained a prayer, meeting the essential requirements of an appeal except for the procedural defects. The Tribunal observed that the Collector (Appeals) did not address any communication to the appellants regarding the defects and failed to consider the initial communication as an appeal despite the appellants rectifying the defects on their own.The Tribunal further highlighted that the Collector (Appeals) did not indicate whether the communication filed in April 1987 was brought to his notice before passing the impugned order. The order lacked any indication of a personal hearing granted to the appellants, which could have allowed them to point out the defective appeal filed within the limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural errors should not obstruct substantial justice and directed the Collector (Appeals) to treat the communication dated 20-4-1987 as an appeal filed within the limitation period after rectification of defects. The Collector (Appeals) was instructed to consider the pre-deposit requirement after providing an adequate opportunity to the appellants and to pass orders in accordance with the law.