Bhura Ram Koli Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....was received in his office on 27-5-1993 whereas the order-in-original was received by the appellants on 6-2-1993 whereas it was contended by the appellants in the ca form that the order-in-original was received on 1-3-1993. the collector (appeals) has observed that there is a postal acknowledgement recording the receipt of the order-in-original on 6-2-1993 bearing the signature of the appellant herein.3. as against the above, the appellant has stated in his appeal memo that he is an illiterate person and he cannot sign. therefore, acknowledgement bearing the signature is irrelevant specially for dismissing the appeal. the collector ought to have given him an opportunity of hearing before dismissing the appeal as barred by time.4. we agree with the aforesaid contention of the appellant given in the appeal memo. consequently, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the collector (appeals). he shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant to satisfy him that the appeal submitted by the appellant before the lower authority was in time.thereafter, he may proceed according to law. the appeal is thus allowed by remand.

Judgment:

1. The matter is called. None appeared for the appellants. We observe that no notice has been issued to the appellants. Nevertheless, we are of the view that the matter can be disposed of in favour of the appellants on the basis of available records. Accordingly, we have heard Shri A.M. Tilak, learned DR for the Revenue.

2. The lower Appellate authority namely Collector of Customs (Appeals) has rejected the appeal as time barred on the ground that the appeal was received in his office on 27-5-1993 whereas the order-in-original was received by the appellants on 6-2-1993 whereas it was contended by the appellants in the CA form that the order-in-original was received on 1-3-1993. The Collector (Appeals) has observed that there is a postal acknowledgement recording the receipt of the order-in-original on 6-2-1993 bearing the signature of the appellant herein.

3. As against the above, the appellant has stated in his appeal Memo that he is an illiterate person and he cannot sign. Therefore, acknowledgement bearing the signature is irrelevant specially for dismissing the appeal. The Collector ought to have given him an opportunity of hearing before dismissing the appeal as barred by time.

4. We agree with the aforesaid contention of the appellant given in the Appeal Memo. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals). He shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant to satisfy him that the appeal submitted by the appellant before the lower authority was in time.

Thereafter, he may proceed according to law. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.