Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Harsco India Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, CE&ST, Hyderabad-IV

2016 (6) TMI 580 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Condonation of delay - Violation of principles of natural justice - Appeal dismissed as being time barred, without even giving an opportunity for personal hearing - Date of receiving the order in ST-4 shown wrongly - Held that:- the appellants were not given a chance of personal hearing which is blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. By such an act, the appellants have been burdened with an unnecessary litigation. The appellants filed appeal on 27/03/2013. The appeal ought to ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellants. The appellant submitted that the error committed in Form ST-4 while noting the date of receiving the order has been repeated in the delay petition also. Hence, the Commissioner(Appeals) is directed to give chance to the appellant to amend the delay petition as well as Form ST-4 with regard to the date of receiving the order and also number of days of delay mentioned in the delay petition. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - ST/27320/2013 - A/30322/2016 - Dated:- 26-4-2016 - Ms. Sulek .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y disallowed part of the refund claim vide order dated 24/12/2012. Being aggrieved the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). In the appeal Form ST-4, the date of receiving the order was shown as 20/01/2013. The appellants had filed an application to condone the delay computing the delay from 20/01/2013. The Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the date of receiving the order is 24/12/2012 and that therefore the period of delay is beyond the power of condonation as provided und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der was received by appellant on 07/01/2013. The appellant had mistakenly mentioned the date of receiving the order as 20/01/2013 in Form St-4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that when computed from 07/01/2013, the appeal ought to have been filed on 06/03/2013. The appellant filed appeal on 27/03/2013 along with petition to condone delay. That the Commissioner(Appeals) has powers to condone delay upto one month. That as no personal hearing was granted, the appellant was deprived of a cha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version