Ravi Fans (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the matter was called. shri m.p. devnath, advocate appeared for the appellants. shri nanak chand, jdr represented the respondent/revenue.2. it is seen that the collector of central excise (appeals) had passed his order dismissing the appeal as time barred under section 35 of the central excises and salt act, 1944.3. the ld. advocate submits that the order passed by the asstt.collector had not been served on them and when they came to know of such an order from other sources, they requested for a copy and an attested copy was made available to them much after the date of the order. they had filed proper appeal in time. no opportunity was given by the ld. collector of central excise (appeals) to explain the delay.4. the ld. jdr replied that there was delay of almost three years in filing the appeal and the collector (appeals) had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond three months.5. i have carefully considered the matter. it is seen from the order passed by the collector (appeals) that he had not gone into the veracity of the statement made by the appellants for delay in filing the appeal. there is nothing to show that any opportunity was given to the appellants before the appeal was rejected as time barred. it is the settled position of law that even before the appeal is dismissed as time barred, an opportunity is required to be given to the appellants to explain the delay and the matter had to be discussed before their application is rejected. in this case, the order appeared against was dated 30-11-1984 but the copy on the strength of which appeal was filed was attested by the superintendent of central excise on 9-2-1987. the ld. collector (appeals) should have gone into the plea of the appellants that no copy of the order was served on them prior to 9-2-1987. they had filed an appeal on 4-5-1987. in view of the above, i consider it to be a fit case for remanding back to the jurisdictional commissioner of central excise (appeals), who should afford the opportunity to the appellants to explain the delay and then the ld.commissioner of central excise (appeals) should go into the grounds if he is satisfied then should go into the merits of the case. in case he is not satisfied then proper reasons should be recorded after investigating the pleas taken by the appellants.6. taking all the relevant considerations into account, i set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remand the matter back to the jurisdictional commissioner of central excise (appeals) for disposal after observing the principles of natural justice. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. The matter was called. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Shri Nanak Chand, JDR represented the respondent/Revenue.

2. It is seen that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had passed his order dismissing the appeal as time barred under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. The ld. Advocate submits that the order passed by the Asstt.

Collector had not been served on them and when they came to know of such an order from other sources, they requested for a copy and an attested copy was made available to them much after the date of the order. They had filed proper appeal in time. No opportunity was given by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to explain the delay.

4. The ld. JDR replied that there was delay of almost three years in filing the appeal and the Collector (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond three months.

5. I have carefully considered the matter. It is seen from the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) that he had not gone into the veracity of the statement made by the appellants for delay in filing the appeal. There is nothing to show that any opportunity was given to the appellants before the appeal was rejected as time barred. It is the settled position of law that even before the appeal is dismissed as time barred, an opportunity is required to be given to the appellants to explain the delay and the matter had to be discussed before their application is rejected. In this case, the order appeared against was dated 30-11-1984 but the copy on the strength of which appeal was filed was attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 9-2-1987. The ld. Collector (Appeals) should have gone into the plea of the appellants that no copy of the order was served on them prior to 9-2-1987. They had filed an appeal on 4-5-1987. In view of the above, I consider it to be a fit case for remanding back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who should afford the opportunity to the appellants to explain the delay and then the ld.Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) should go into the grounds if he is satisfied then should go into the merits of the case. In case he is not satisfied then proper reasons should be recorded after investigating the pleas taken by the appellants.

6. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remand the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for disposal after observing the principles of natural justice. Ordered accordingly.