2018 (3) TMI 863 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – refund claim – time limitation – Held that: – the last date to file the appeal was 19.7.2015 which was a Sunday i.e. a non-working day for the Central Government offices. In such a case, the last date for filing the appeal would shift to the next working day i.e. 20.7.2015 on which date the appeal was admittedly to have been filed.
–
In fact the appeal was filed within the limitation of two months, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly computed the period of limitation in filing the appeal and has wrongly arrived at a finding that the appeal was filed after the expiry of two months and one day from the date of receipt of the order-in-original.
–
Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the same on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice – appeal allowed by way of remand. – APPLICATION Nos. ST/COD/93245, 93279/17-Mum, APPEAL Nos. ST/87980,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
authority has noticed certain discrepancies in the refund claim and after following due process, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of ₹ 47,00,144/- for the period from July 2012 to March 2013 as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal being time barred and not maintainable under Section 85 of the Finance Act. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by wrongly interpreting the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that the order-in-original dated 19.5.2015 was received by the appellant on 20.5.2015 and thereafter the appeal was filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.7.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the Finance Act, the appeal was to be filed within a period of two months before the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, I find that the last date to file the appeal was 19.7.2015 which was a Sunday i.e. a non-working day for the Central Government offices. In such a case, the last date for filing the appeal would shift to the next working day i.e. 20.7.2015 on which date the appeal was admittedly to have been filed. Therefore, I am of the view that in fact the appeal was filed within the limitation of two months, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly computed the period of limitation in filing the appeal and has wrongly arrived at a finding that the appeal was filed after the expiry of two months and one day from the date of receipt of the order-in-original. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the same on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice. 7
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =