Jay Arts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Jay Arts Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 23, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41927

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/41927
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Feb 23, 2006
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

Jay Arts Ltd.

Advocate Shri. U.H. Jadhav Ld. JDR

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....circumstances.3. after hearing the ld. dr we find that the appellant wrote a letter to the authorities on 6.8.2005 intimating non receipt of the order by them. the said letter was written within the period of limitation. this reflects on the fact that the appellant was actually not aware of the receipt of impugned order by shri gupta, who was not regularly attending office on account of his brother's illness and thereafter on account of his death. it is the office of the assistant commissioner who took more than three months in letting the appellant know that the impugned order was dispatched to them and was received by their employee as evident from the acknowledgement. if the appellant's letter dt. 6.8.05 would have been replied to well within time, the appellant would have made efforts to locate the order and to file an appeal their against. as such, we are of the view that the (sic) exist sufficient and justifiable reasons to condone the delay. we order accordingly.3. arguing on the stay petition appellants submits that the duty has been confirmed against them in respect of the furniture made by them which includes fix furnitured purchased item and non furniture also.shri v.k. jain fairly agrees that 'he guidelines in such type of matters have been laid down by the tribunal in the case of interscape v. commissioner of central excise, calcutta 2001 (135) elt. 942 (tri.kolkata) which have been consistently followed by the tribunal in a number of cases and matters had been remanded for re-adjudication in the light of such guide lines. he also submits that in fact in one of their subsequent cases commissioner has followed the interscape decision and passed the order accordingly. as such, he prays that the present matter, he also remanded for fresh decision.4. shri u.h. jadhav ld. jdr appearing for the appellants agrees to the above prayer of ld. advocate. as such, after dispensing that the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty we take up the appeal.....

Full Judgment

1. Delay in filing the present appeal is of about 83 days. The impugned order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.6.2005 and the normal limitation period would expire on 24.9.05. It is seen that the appellant received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner on 21.7.2005 directing them to deposit the amount in question as confirmed in terms of the impugned order. The appellant immediately wrote to the Commissioner as also to Commissioner (Appeals) vide their letter dt.

6.8.05 that the impugned order has not been received by them, and as such a request was made to provide a certified copy of the order. The said letter was replied by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.11.05 intimating the appellant that the said order was dispatched to their address and was received by one Shri F.K. Gupta, an employee of the company. Copy of the acknowledgement was also enclosed. Thereafter the appellant made enquiries and found that the order was indeed received by Shri Gupta on 1.7.05. However as Shri Gupat's brother was seriously ill during the relevant period and he was most of the time on leave, the order was not forwarded to any responsible person in the company and was kept in the drawer of his table. Shri Gupta's brother ultimately expired on 12.8.05.

2. In the above scenario Shri Vipin Jain submits that since they were intimated by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.11.05 as regard the receipt of the order, they searched for the same and filed an appeal their against within a period of 1 month i.e. on 22.12.05. As such, he submits that there was no intentional lapse on the part of the appellant as the delay had occurred on account of unforeseen circumstances.

3. After hearing the Ld. DR we find that the appellant wrote a letter to the authorities on 6.8.2005 intimating non receipt of the order by them. The said letter was written within the period of limitation. This reflects on the fact that the appellant was actually not aware of the receipt of impugned order by Shri Gupta, who was not regularly attending office on account of his brother's illness and thereafter on account of his death. It is the office of the Assistant Commissioner who took more than three months in letting the appellant know that the impugned order was dispatched to them and was received by their employee as evident from the acknowledgement. If the appellant's letter dt. 6.8.05 would have been replied to well within time, the appellant would have made efforts to locate the order and to file an appeal their against. As such, we are of the view that the (sic) exist sufficient and justifiable reasons to condone the delay. We order accordingly.

3. Arguing on the stay petition appellants submits that the duty has been confirmed against them in respect of the furniture made by them which includes fix furnitured purchased item and non furniture also.

Shri V.K. Jain fairly agrees that 'he guidelines in such type of matters have been laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Interscape v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta 2001 (135) ELT. 942 (Tri.

Kolkata) which have been consistently followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases and matters had been remanded for re-adjudication in the light of such guide lines. He also submits that in fact in one of their subsequent cases Commissioner has followed the Interscape decision and passed the order accordingly. As such, he prays that the present matter, he also remanded for fresh decision.

4. Shri U.H. Jadhav Ld. JDR appearing for the appellants agrees to the above prayer of Ld. Advocate. As such, after dispensing that the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty we take up the appeal itself, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the Tribunal's judgment referred supra.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Jay Arts Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.