TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) in appeal No. 57641/2013. 2. The aforesaid appeal has a rather peculiar history, and has resulted in anomalous and confusing orders of the Tribunal as noted below. 3. By order dated 11th December, 2017, we had framed the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in passing the order dated 2nd February, 2017 and dismissing the application for rectification on the ground that the Tribunal does not have any power of review and hear the appeal on merits notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had filed an application that there was error apparent on the face of the order dated 20th October, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erim order dated 15th September, 2014 was passed in favour of the appellant. Notwithstanding the fact that it was the case of the appellant that the appeal was filed within time, Tribunal vide order dated 15th September, 2014 had directed the appellant to explain purported delay. 7. The appeal was next taken up for hearing on 20th October, 2014 and was dismissed, recording:- "Vide interim order dated 833/2014 dated 15.9.2014, Revenue's objection as regards the appeal being barred by limitation was taken not of and the applicant was directed to explain the delay, matter was adjourned to today. On matter being called today, one Mr. Ritesh appeared and submitted that he is given his vakalatnama on behalf of Mr. P. Gupta another advocate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion being called, there was no representation or request for adjournment. The appellant thereafter filed another application on 4th August, 2015 to restore the Appeal No. 57641/2013, stating that his counsel had reached the Tribunal at 11:00 clock on 6th July, 2015, but by them the miscellaneous application had been dismissed in default. Due to heavy rain and traffic jam, counsel for the appellant could not to reach and appear in the matter on the first call. 10. This application filed on 4th August, 2015 was taken up for hearing on 10th February, 2016 and adjourned to 13th February, 2016 with a direction to the departmental representative to seek comments from the Commissioner and file a detailed date chart. The appellant was asked to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we allow this Misc. application and list the COD application for hearing on 30.9.2016 Misc. application is disposed of." 13. This order dated 7th September, 2016 has not been challenged by the appellant or the respondent. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the application for condonation of delay (referred to as COD) was taken up for hearing before the Tribunal on 30th September, 2016. Application for condonation of delay was taken up for hearing with the appeal on, 24th February, 2017, when the following order was passed:- "5.After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, it appears that on 20.10.2014, this Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation alongwith the dismissal of stay petition. The RoA application No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not communicated and was served for the first time on 25th February, 2013 is wrong and fallacious. The factual dispute would have to be examined by the Tribunal. In view of the stand of the assessee, the Tribunal would have to decide whether or not the appeal preferred by the appellant was within limitation. Issue would also arise whether limitation period would commence or taken from the date of the impugned order, date on which the order was issued or sent by post or the date on which the order was served. The second aspect/issue is a question of law. Factual and legal aspects are interconnected. In case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the date of the order or the date of issue would be the starting point of limitation, then....