Dee Pharma Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Dee Pharma Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 21, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32757

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/32757
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Oct 21, 2003
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dee Pharma Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(163)ELT366TriDel

Excerpt

.....12-3-2003. thereafter, the commissioner (appeals) dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. the contention of the appellants is that no opportunity was granted to them to explain the delay in filing the appeals. the commissioner (appeals) has taken into consideration that the adjudication order was pasted on 22-12-2002 at their factory premises which was lying closed. as the factory was lying closed, the adjudication order was also served on the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address. therefore, the contention of the appellants is that there is no delay in filing the appeals.7. in this case, the commissioner (appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred. the contention of the appellants is that the adjudication order was received by them on 25-1-2001. if this date is taken into consideration, then there is no delay in filing the appeal. the revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellants received adjudication order at their office address under the cover of letter issued on 23-1-2001.8. the revenue is taking into consideration the date of the communication of the adjudication order as 22-12-2000 when this order was pasted at the factory premises of the appellants. it is also not disputed by the revenue that their factory was closed during that period. in these circumstances, we find that as the adjudication order was received by the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address, therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. we further find that the commissioner (appeals) has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellants before dismissing the appeal as time-barred to explain the delay in filing the appeal. in these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence set aside, the matter is remanded to the commissioner (appeals) to decide the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. Both these appeals are on the same issue and therefore, are being taken up together for disposal.

2. Both the appeals are filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed as time-barred.

3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the appellants. Appellants filed the appeals against the Adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dismissed their appeals as time-barred.

5. The contention of the appellants is that the Adjudication order was passed on 31-10-2000 and was issued on 23-11-2000. The copy of the order was received by M/s. Dee Pharma Limited at their office address on 25-1-2001. The appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-4-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) issued notice of hearing for 21-2-2003 on the stay application. The appellants made a request for an adjournment. The Commissioner (Appeals) however adjourned the case for 12-3-2003. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. The contention of the appellants is that no opportunity was granted to them to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The Commissioner (appeals) has taken into consideration that the adjudication order was pasted on 22-12-2002 at their factory premises which was lying closed. As the factory was lying closed, the Adjudication Order was also served on the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that there is no delay in filing the appeals.

7. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The contention of the appellants is that the Adjudication order was received by them on 25-1-2001. If this date is taken into consideration, then there is no delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellants received adjudication order at their office address under the cover of letter issued on 23-1-2001.

8. The Revenue is taking into consideration the date of the communication of the adjudication order as 22-12-2000 when this order was pasted at the factory premises of the appellants. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that their factory was closed during that period. In these circumstances, we find that as the adjudication order was received by the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address, therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. We further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellants before dismissing the appeal as time-barred to explain the delay in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence set aside, The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Dee Pharma Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.