Whether delay of 765 days in filing appeal is condonable due to non receipt of order in time?

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1365

Case:-M/s CHANDIGARH NETWORK SYSTEM (P) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

Citation:-2012-TIOL-1862-CESTAT-DEL

Issue:- Whether delay of 765 daysin filing appeal is condonable due to non receipt of order in time?

Brief facts:- The order was not received by appellant and they came to know about passing of the order only when they received a letter dated 7.6.2011 by their jurisdictional Range office for deposit of the confirmed dues. Immediately, thereafter they wrote a letter to the department on 10.6.11 disclosing that they have not received the order passed on 16.6.09 and as such certified copy of the same be supplied to them. It is seen that a copy of the order was forwarded to the appellant under the cover of Revenue's letter dated 14.6.11. Thereafter the appellant kept on requesting the department to supply the certified copy of the order so that an appeal could be filed against the same.

Appellants contention:- The learned advocate appearing for the appellant brought attention to the register's page attached with the said letter showing dispatch of the orders to the appellants. He submits that address shown in the above registered letter is incomplete and as such, giving rise to doubt as to whether the said order was received by the appellant or not. The appellant also stated that they have already deposited an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs towards confirmed duty against them.

Respondents contention:-The respondent produced on record, a letter dated 14.3.12 addressed by the Commissioner indicating that the said order was sent to the appellant through registered/speed post on 18.6.09 and has not received back undelivered through the postal authorities.

Reasoning of judgement:-Tribunal note that the proof advanced by the Revenue indicates dispatch of the said order to M/s. Chandigarh Network Systems (P) Ltd. Chandigarh. There is no complete address given in the said registry. As such, a doubt can arise as to whether the said order stand actual received by the appellant or not. Though the order was passed in 2009, revenue only approached the appellant in 2011 for recovery of dues. If the Revenue would have approached the appellant for recovery of the confirmed demand at an early date, the appellant could have come to know about passing of the impugned order. By taking into consideration all the above facts, Tribunal condones the delay and allow the application.

Decision:-Appeal Allowed.

Comment:-The analogy drawn from the case is that delay in filing appeal even in respect of significant days is condonable if sufficient cause is shown for such delay.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1365

Post a Comment

Query