Karan Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Karan Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 15, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41809

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/41809
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 15, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karan Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

C.C.E.

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(110)ECC240

Excerpt

.....has been reached without going into the specific aspects of the matter. it is being pointed out that the appellant had informed the jurisdictional central excise assistant commissioner under his letter dated 30.11.98 about the closure of its factory. the heading of that letter indicated the other addresses of the appellant. according to the learned counsel, any service of communication thereafter would be meaningful only if the communication is sent to other than factory address. it is not clear from commissioner (appeals) order whether the adjudication order was sent to the factory or to other address. learned counsel has also referred to a letter dated 2.9.2002 of the appellant to the joint commissioner complaining about the non-receipt of the copy of the adjudication order and seeking certified copy. according to the learned counsel, it is clear from this letter that and that this communication has also not been considered by the commissioner (appeals).3. the learned sdr submits that commissioner (appeals) bad gone by the correct legal position regarding the service of the order as laid down by the tribunal as well as by the apex court. he is, however, not able to state the factual position about the letters relied upon by the learned counsel.4. it is clear from what is stated above that the conclusion about the service of adjudication order has been reached by the commissioner (appeals) without taking into account the full range of communication between the department and the appellant. it is, therefore, necessary that the matter goes back to the commissioner (appeals) for a fresh determination on the aspect of limitation after taking into account the specific facts of the case. accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the commissioner for a fresh decision. commissioner shall disclose the facts about the service of the order as revealed by office record to the appellant and allow it to make submission, before passing.....

Full Judgment

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed before him as being beyond the period of limitation. His observations on the limitation issue are to be found in para 3 of the order. That para reads as under: 3. I have gone through the case records. I find that this office has made an enquiry with the adjudicating authority regarding service of the impugned order to the said appellants. The adjudicating authority vide letter C. No. V(H) Dem/129/98 informed this office that Order in Original No. 70/99 and 71/99 dated 27/7/1999 was dispatched through Registered letters and both the registered letter were not returned back. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLP (Civil) No.S.No. Order in Original/ Date of dispatch Date of filing Period of Date appeal delay after date of1.

70/99 dated 27.7.1999 4.9.2002 1135 days 27/7/19992.

71/99 dated 27.7.1999 4.9.2002 1135 days 27/7/1999 Thus, the appeal was filed by them late by more than three years; whereas, the appeal against the impugned order must be filed within 3 months of the receipt of the order at the relevant time. Since the appeal filed beyond the statutory period of three months as provided under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore, both the appeals are dismissed on the ground of limitation.Bharat Nandlal Kalyani v. Collector of Customs (Prev.) 1988(36) ELT 645 (Tri) upholding Tribunal's decision that as regard of service of notice, if notice is served by registered post, it will be treated as 'served', as reported in 1997 (94) ELT A251 (SC). In view of above, the orders must have been served in reasonable period from the date of dispatch. The appeals have been filed after period as mentioned below from the date of dispatch-- 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the finding has been reached without going into the specific aspects of the matter. It is being pointed out that the appellant had informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner under his letter dated 30.11.98 about the closure of its factory. The heading of that letter indicated the other addresses of the appellant. According to the learned Counsel, any service of communication thereafter would be meaningful only if the communication is sent to other than factory address. It is not clear from Commissioner (Appeals) order whether the adjudication order was sent to the factory or to other address. Learned Counsel has also referred to a letter dated 2.9.2002 of the appellant to the Joint Commissioner complaining about the non-receipt of the copy of the adjudication order and seeking certified copy. According to the learned Counsel, it is clear from this letter that and that this communication has also not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The learned SDR submits that Commissioner (Appeals) bad gone by the correct legal position regarding the service of the order as laid down by the Tribunal as well as by the Apex court. He is, however, not able to state the factual position about the letters relied upon by the learned Counsel.

4. It is clear from what is stated above that the conclusion about the service of adjudication order has been reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) without taking into account the full range of communication between the department and the appellant. It is, therefore, necessary that the matter goes back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh determination on the aspect of limitation after taking into account the specific facts of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. Commissioner shall disclose the facts about the service of the order as revealed by office record to the appellant and allow it to make submission, before passing the order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Karan Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B.