TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Allows Appeal, Finds Improper Order Service u/s 37C of Central Excise Act, Case Remanded for Review.</h1> <h3>SUNSHINE VELVET PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX - CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA II</h3> SUNSHINE VELVET PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX - CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA II - TMI Issues Involved:1. Early hearing application rejected by Commissioner (Appeals)2. Appeal dismissed for delay in filing3. Dispute regarding the date of communication of the orderAnalysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of being time-barred and not on merit. The Tribunal deemed it unjustified to keep the appeal pending based on this reason alone. Therefore, the Early hearing application was allowed, and the appeal itself was taken up for disposal with the consent of both parties.2. The impugned order dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, as it was submitted after 90 days. The appellant argued that the order was not served to the intended recipient or their authorized agent as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant claimed that the actual date of communication was when they discovered the order, not when it was initially received by an unauthorized person. Citing various judgments, the appellant contended that the appeal was filed within the permissible timeframe.3. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the statutory provision under Section 37C, concluded that the order was not served in accordance with the law. The order was found by the appellant after receiving a recovery notice, and it was within the 60-day filing period. Referring to established legal principles, the Tribunal determined that the appeal was filed on time and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merit.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) after setting aside the impugned order. The decision was based on the finding that the appeal was not time-barred and needed to be considered on its merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
