B.G. Veneers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. heard shri b.n. chattopadhyay, consultant for appellant and shri j.r. madhiam, jdr for respondent. mr. chattopadhyay submits that in present case the order-in-original was received by appellant on 24-11-2003 and appeal was presented on 23-2-2004. the learned commissioner has observed that the appeal was filed after the expiry of the period of 90 days. he submits that on 21st february, 2004. saturday and 22nd february, 2004 was sunday. therefore, the appeal was filed on 23rd february, 2004 i.e. within the extended period of limitation. he, further, submits that the appeal could not be filed in time before commissioner of appeals within 60 days due to the fact that the dealing assistant left the job in october, 2003 and the papers could not be traced by the successor. therefore, he submits that the delay for late filing of the appeal have been properly explained. therefore, he submits that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be remanded to commissioner of appeals for decisions on merit.2. learned d.r. supports the impugned order. he prays that the appeal has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. therefore, the appeal before the commissioner of appeals was not maintainable and rightly has been dismissed.3. in present case the memo of appeal was received in the office of commissioner of appeals on 23rd february, 2004. the appellant received the order-in-original on 24-11-2003. the normal period of limitation is 60 days and the commissioner of appeals can condone the delay up to 30 days. in present case the period of 30 days expired on 22nd february, 2004. 21st february, 2004 was saturday and 22nd february, 2004 was sunday. on both the days the office of the commissioner of appeals was closed. as per section 4 of limitation act, where prescribed period of any suit appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.4. in present case 21st and 22nd february, 2004 were holidays. the office of the commissioner of appeals reopened on 23rd february, 2004.the appeal was presented within the extended period of limitation i.e.30 days. the reasons of the delay explained by the appellant are satisfactory. the dealing assistant concerned left the job in october, 2003 and the appellant could not trace out the papers. therefore, the delay was beyond the control of the appellant. i, therefore, allow the appeal set aside the impugned order, condone the delay and remand the case to the commissioner of appeals for disposal in accordance with

Judgment:
1. Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Appellant and Shri J.R. Madhiam, JDR for Respondent. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that in present case the Order-in-Original was received by appellant on 24-11-2003 and appeal was presented on 23-2-2004. The learned Commissioner has observed that the appeal was filed after the expiry of the period of 90 days. He submits that on 21st February, 2004. Saturday and 22nd February, 2004 was Sunday. Therefore, the appeal was filed on 23rd February, 2004 i.e. within the extended period of limitation. He, further, submits that the appeal could not be filed in time before Commissioner of Appeals within 60 days due to the fact that the dealing Assistant left the job in October, 2003 and the papers could not be traced by the successor. Therefore, he submits that the delay for late filing of the appeal have been properly explained. Therefore, he submits that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be remanded to Commissioner of Appeals for decisions on merit.

2. Learned D.R. supports the impugned order. He prays that the appeal has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals was not maintainable and rightly has been dismissed.

3. In present case the Memo of Appeal was received in the office of Commissioner of Appeals on 23rd February, 2004. The appellant received the Order-in-original on 24-11-2003. The normal period of limitation is 60 days and the Commissioner of Appeals can condone the delay up to 30 days. In present case the period of 30 days expired on 22nd February, 2004. 21st February, 2004 was Saturday and 22nd February, 2004 was Sunday. On both the days the Office of the Commissioner of Appeals was closed. As per Section 4 of Limitation Act, where prescribed period of any suit appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.

4. In present case 21st and 22nd February, 2004 were holidays. The Office of the Commissioner of Appeals reopened on 23rd February, 2004.

The appeal was presented within the extended period of limitation i.e.

30 days. The reasons of the delay explained by the appellant are satisfactory. The dealing Assistant concerned left the job in October, 2003 and the appellant could not trace out the papers. Therefore, the delay was beyond the control of the appellant. I, therefore, allow the appeal set aside the impugned order, condone the delay and remand the case to the Commissioner of Appeals for disposal in accordance with