BANSAL ISPAT UDYOG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal of the appellants, through the impugned order, had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a delay of 32 days, whereas he could only condone the delay of up to 30 days, and being bound by the law, could not entertain the appeal.

(2.) I have heard both sides. The bare perusal of the record shows that on the covering letter vide which the copy of the order -in -original was sent to the appellants, it was specifically mentioned that the appeal could be filed within three months either by presenting personally or by sending the same by post. The appellants therefore remained under the impression that the period of limitation provided to them was 90 days. They also sent the appeal by post on 26 -2 -2002 as it was so mentioned in the said covering letter of the order -in -original. The appellants cannot be, therefore, allowed to suffer by the lapse on the part of the Department. They instead of informing the appellants that the appeal was to be filed within two months wrongly communicated that the appeal could be filed within three months. Therefore under these circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the appellants should be heard on merits.

(3.) In similar circumstances, the Tribunal in the case of Pooja Carrier and Anr. v. CC(P), West Bengal, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 933 (Tribunal) = 2003 (56) RLT 457 (T), had condoned the delay and sent back the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the appeal on merits.