Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalRahim Travels vs Nagpur on 13 November, 2012IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI


APPLICATION NO: ST/Stay-1677/2010
APPEAL NO: ST/421/2010

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No:  SR/156/NGP/2010 dated 26/05/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur.]


For approval and signature:

     Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
     Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

	

1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
Yes
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes


Rahim Travels

Appellant
Vs


Commissioner of Central Excise 


Nagpur

RespondentAppearance:Shri Vijay Joshi, Chartered Accountant for the appellant
Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Superintend (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
     Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)


Date of decision:                    13/12/2011

ORDER NO: ____________________________


Per: Ashok Jindal:The appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal on the ground of limitation.  As the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage, therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal.2. As per the impugned order, the appellant received the order-in-original on 16/10/2009 which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 12/04/2010.  The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is a delay of 88 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal.3. As perSection 85of the Finance Act, 1994, in service tax matters, an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) can be filed within 90 days of the communication of the order impugned and the period can be further extended for another three months if sufficient cause has been shown to the Commissioner (Appeals) for delay.  It is admitted, that the order-in-original was received by the appellant on 16/10/2009 and, therefore, the last date for filing the appeal was 15/01/2010 and they have filed the appeal on 12/04/2010.  Therefore, there is a delay of 88 days only, which is also within the extended period of condonation where the Commissioner (Appeals) is having discretionary power to condone the delay on his satisfaction of the explanation shown by the appellant for causing the delay.  As the appellant has submitted that during the impugned period, they have gone abroad and only after their return from abroad they could get the appeal documents prepared.  Therefore, we find that the appellant has made out a case for condoning the delay as the appellant is able to explain the cause for delay in filing the appeal to the satisfaction of this Bench.  Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).4. As the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation, therefore, we remand back the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an appropriate order on merits, after giving a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.(Dictated in Court)
(P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Technical)
(Ashok Jindal)
 Member (Judicial)


*/as3