Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalYes vs Represented By : Shri Suriyanarayanan, ... on 8 July, 2009CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad




Appeal No.		:	E/436 & 474 of 2009
					(Appln. Nos. E/S/435 & 474 of 2009)
	
Arising out of 	:	OIA No. 163/2008(Ahd-II)CE/ID/Commr (A)/
					Ahd  and 163/2008(Ahd-II)CE/ID/Commr (A)/ 						Ahd both dated 17.12.2008
						
Passed by 		:  	Commr. (Appeals), C.Ex. Ahmedabad.

For approval and signature :

Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)

1
Whether Press Reporter 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?

No 
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



Appellant (s)	:	Shri Mohd. Zuned I. Kapadia
					Shri Asalambhai Yunusbhai Tailor

Represented by	:	Shri Suriyanarayanan, Adv.

Respondent (s)	:	Commissioner, C. Excise AhmedabadRepresented by	:	Shri R.S. Srova, JDR & Shri S.K. Mall, SDR

CORAM :Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)


	Date of Hearing : 08.7.2009

	Date of Decision: 08.7.2009 










ORDER No. 	_____________ /WZB/AHD/2009 Dt : ____ 2009

	Per : Mrs. Archana Wadhwa,

	After hearing both the sides, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation by observing that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner was received by the appellants on 24.3.2008/26.3.2008.  As such there was a delay of about 129 days, for which the Commissioner (Appeals) has not empowered to condone.2.	I find that the law on the above issue is settled by various decisions.  Reference is made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s.Singh Enterprises vs. CCE Jamshedpur[2008 (221) ELT.163 (SC)].  However, learned Advocate submits that Commissioner (Appeals), before dismissing the appeals on the point of limitation, has not granted any opportunity to them, to explain that the impugned order was not received on 24.3.2008/26.3.2008, as observed by him but were received subsequently in July 2008 and the appeals were filed within time.  Learned SDR produced on record the acknowledgement due indicating that the impugned order was received by the appellants on 24.3.2008/26.3.2008.  Ld. Advocate submits that the said acknowledgement has been shown to them for the first time before the proceedings before the Tribunal and as such, he is not in a position to offer any comments on the same.3.	Inasmuch as the appellate authority has not given any chance to the appellants to explain the factual position, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.  Needless to say that the appellants be given a chance to defend on the point of limitation.  Stay petitions as well as the appeals, get disposed off in above terms.(Dictated & Pronounced in the Court)






								(Archana Wadhwa) 									  Member (Judicial) 					

KL


























??

??

??

??3