CESTAT Condones Delay in Filing Appeal Before Commissioner as Neither Party Conclusively Proves Date of Service [Read Order]
Considering neither party can prove the date of service of the original order, the CESTAT condoned the delay, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals)
![CESTAT Condones Delay in Filing Appeal Before Commissioner as Neither Party Conclusively Proves Date of Service [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CESTAT-Condones-Delay-in-Filing-Appeal-Commissioner-Party-Conclusively-Proves-Date-of-Service-TAXSCAN.jpg "CESTAT Condones Delay in Filing Appeal Before Commissioner as Neither Party Conclusively Proves Date of Service [Read Order]")
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) citing that neither party could conclusively prove the date of service. A.S. Enterprise, the appellant is a business entity based in New Delhi. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their earlier appeal by...
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) citing that neither party could conclusively prove the date of service.
A.S. Enterprise, the appellant is a business entity based in New Delhi. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their earlier appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata on the grounds of delay in filing.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the earlier appeal citing that it was filed beyond the statutory period of 60 days provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an additional maximum condonable period of 30 days.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the Order-in-Original dated 30.07.2018 was received only on 10.08.2018 and that their appeal filed on 09.10.2018 was within the permissible 90-day limit. The appellant’s counsel could not produce documentary evidence to support their claim of delayed receipt.
Audit Smart, Secure Strong: Lead the Digital Safety Frontier - Click here to know more
The department argued that the order was served on 31.07.2018 but similarly failed to provide evidence to substantiate this claim.
The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that both parties lacked conclusive evidence regarding the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original. Based on the appellant's satisfactory explanation, the tribunal condoned the delay.
The tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s rejection order and remanded the matter for a decision on merits. The tribunal directed adherence to the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) must resolve the matter within three months from the receipt of the order. The appellant’s appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
