Judgment:
1. By the captioned appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held : "The appeal has been filed without brief facts and ground of appeal.
It cannot be considered as an appeal at all. Nor it is a proper way to file appeals in such manner. No condonation of Delay Application has also been filed by the appellants though more than 3 months have passed after the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellants. The appeal lacks substance and is dismissed as time barred as well as unsubstantiated. The appellants have availed the impugned order." 2. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had filed the appeal in Form EA-I. He submits that in the appeal it -was indicated that the brief facts of the case and the Grounds of Appeal shall be submitted later on and there was prayer seeking reliefs. The ld. Counsel submitted that there was another prayer in the appeal that they may be granted a personal hearing. He submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without putting the appellants to Notice and without caring for their request of personal hearing rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not in accordance with the requirements of Rule 213. The ld. Counsel submitted that non-submission of the Ground of Appeal and the brief facts was a curable defect and that the appellants should have been provided an opportunity of arguing their case. He submits that recently in the case of the appellants themselves a Single Member Bench of this Tribunal under its Order No. A/793/97-NB (S/M), dated 23-9-1997 has held that: "The appellants should have been granted an opportunity to rectify the defects or in the alternative the Commissioner should have granted them a personal hearing and the defects should have been brought to their notice. As the case has been decided without hearing, it is but proper that the impugned order is set aside and remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration." 3. He submitted that this decision of the Tribunal sequarely covers their case. Ld. Counsel also submitted that in the case of Cheema Paper Mills (P) Ltd. and Sonavision (P) Ltd. the same ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had entertained the appeal, though, in the appeals filed, appellants have indicated that the statement of facts and Ground of Appeal will be submitted later on. He submitted that in those two cases the appeal was considered and decided on merits whereas the same treatment was not meted out to the present appeal by the same ld.Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be remanded for de novo consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Opposing the request for de novo consideration of the appeal by its remand Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR submitted that Rule 213 is very clear.
He submits that to be an appeal the brief facts of the case and the Grounds of Appeal be set out because in the absence of this no decision whatsoever can be taken and the appeal itself cannot be termed as appeal. He submits that in the present case the appellants had only furnished statistical information in Form EA-I. This statistical information cannot be termed as an appeal. He submits that Rules are very clear on the subject and that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was right in holding that in the absence of brief facts of the case and the Ground of Appeal the papers submitted to him were not appeal, and therefore, the same was not maintainable. Ld. SDR, therefore, submits that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in the case of Sonavision and Cheema Papers, supra, the facts are not clear whether the appellants had already submitted the brief facts of the case and the Ground of Appeal before the case was listed for decision.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be filed under Rule 213 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. An appeal in addition to the statistical information requires the facts of the case and the Grounds of Appeal. The facts of the case and the Grounds of Appeal are essential for any documents to be termed as an appeal. What precisely the case is and what precisely the Grounds on the basis of which the impugned order is being attacked are required to be set out clearly.
The question, therefore, is whether in the absence of such grounds being set out and such facts being stated the document can be termed as an appeal. An appeal shall be a self contained document indicating not only the facts of the case but also the detailed reasons for terming the impugned order as a decision in error. Thus, non furnishing of the grounds of appeal and the facts of the case cannot be termed as a mere curable defect. No doubt some minor defects like not sending the bank draft along with the appeal or some copy of the original order or wrong address are curable defects because even without this the appeal otherwise sets out the facts of the case and the Grounds of attack.
Thus, non furnishing of the statements of facts and the Grounds of Appeal is not a curable defect and the appeal can, therefore, not be termed as an appeal under Rule 213.
6. In this view of the matter we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal is rejected. Stay application is also disposed of accordingly.