Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 508 (GAU)

Tribeni Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax

2016-06-06

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. R Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents. 3. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against order dated 8.4.2015 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata in Appeal No. Ex. Ap. 75248/2014. 4. A show cause notice, dated 4.6.2010, was issued to the appellant against alleged erroneous refund of Rs. 4,26,126/-. The appellant replied to the show cause notice, but the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 10.1.2011, confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,26,126/-. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but was dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2013. The appellant, thereafter, filed appeal before the Tribunal and since there was a delay of 84 days in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected the application for condonation of delay. In the result, the appeal before the Tribunal also stands dismissed. It is, in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. It is argued on behalf of appellant that in all fairness, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit. 6. The impugned order reveals that on the date, when the case was called for hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of appellant. It is now settled that every endeavour should be made by the Courts to decide the dispute on merit, instead of dismissing the same on technical ground, such as, limitation, unless the delay is deliberate and cannot be explained. 7. The delay in the instant case was only of 84 days and on the date, when the case was called for hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay by imposing cost for the lapse on the part of appellant. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and condone the delay in filing the appeal, but on payment of cost of Rs. 2000/-. The appellant shall deposit the cost of Rs. 2000/- in the Tribunal within 1 month from today. The Tribunal shall, thereafter, decide the appeal on merit. The appeal is allowed.