TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) has rejected the appellant's appeal as time-barred. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Its manufacturing unit is situated at Plot No. 30 & 31, Brahmaputra Industrial Park, Amingaon, North Guwahati, Assam-781031, registered with the Central Excise Department vide Registration No. AABCE7067MEM001. 3. The said manufacturing unit is entitled to area-based exemption under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 issued under Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per Sl. No. 2 of the Table in Paragraph 2A of the said Notification, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/- instead of the correct figure of Rs.10,38,44,496/-, thereby causing a short payment of Rs.77,05,668/- to the appellant; it is also their case that the adjudicating authority was fully aware of the said refund reversals, as these were expressly noted in Monthly Refund Order No. 250/DCG/2016-17 dated 28.06.2016 (for January 2016) and Monthly Refund Order No. 390/DCG/2016-17 dated 05.08.2016 (for February 2016) and the short payment is a mistake apparent from record. 6.1. The appellant, under a bona fide belief that the short payment was an error, verbally brought the matter to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner (the Refund Passing Authority) on receipt of the order, and thereafter made a written rectification application on 08.05....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to it and thus, the time-limit prescribed for filing an appeal against the said Order-in-Original before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not notified to the appellant; that they were under the bona fide belief that the rectification sought could be done by the Deputy Commissioner and accordingly, they had addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner (Refund Passing Authority) on 08.05.2017; further, a reminder letter was sent to the Deputy Commissioner on 26.06.2017 and another letter was also sent to the Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati on 13.09.2017 on the issue. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that there was no reply from any of the concerned authorities and therefore, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be extended by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, he contends that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal filed before him by the appellant as time-barred. 10. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 11. It is a fact on record that the appellant has received the Refund Order No. R-932/DR-15-16(SR)/DCG/2016-17 dated 10.02.2017 on 18.02.2017. From a perusal of the Order, it is evident that there is no 'Preamble' attached with the said Refund Order. Needless to say that it is a mandatory requirement under law to enclose a 'Preamble' along with such orders indicating the time-limit availing to assessees for filing appeals against such orders as well as the Form under which such appeal wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (319) E.L.T. 373 (S.C.)] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: - "52. The present case stands on a slightly different footing. The abortive appeal had been filed against orders passed in March-April, 1992. The present appeal was filed under Section 128, which Section continues on the statute book till date. Before its amendment in 2001, it provided a maximum period of 180 days within which an appeal could be filed. Time began to run on 3-4-1992 under Section 128 pre-amendment when the appellant received the order of the Superintendent of Customs intimating it about an order passed by the Collector of Customs on 25-3-1992. Under Section 128 as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame clear that the proceeding filed in1992 was a proceeding before the wrong forum. The vested right of appeal within the period of 180 days had not yet got over. Upon the lifting of the shadow, a certain residuary period within which a proper appeal could be filed still remained. That period would continue to be within the period of 180 days notwithstanding the amendment made in 2001 as otherwise the right to appeal itself would vanish given the shorter period of limitation provided by Section 128 after 2001." 11.4. The same view has also been reiterated by the Tribunal at New Delhi in the case of Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2017 (358) E.L.T. 380 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein, on similar facts and circumstanc....