TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 - Dated:- 28-12-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Aswin Gopakumar, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellants have filed 8 appeals against the common impugned order, the details of which are furnished below: Appeal No. Period Demand Penalty E/20807/2015 February 2005 Rs.97,662/- Rs.20,000/- E/20808/2015 March 2005 Rs.2,19,237/- Rs.4,385/- Rs.2,23,622/- (interest) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gaged in the business of manufacture and sale of enameled copper wires falling under tariff item 8544 11 10 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. During the period, 2002-03, the appellant extended the business of setting up a unit in Cochin Special Economic Zone under the name Elmag Wires Ltd. However, this proved to be a big operational mistake as the unit ran into extensive running cost, further fuelled by problematic machinery etc., all of which sucked away the resources of the parent unit in Aroor. During the period 2004-05, copper prices escalated and upset the delicate balance then prevalent in the industry. As a result of it, the company could not arrange enough working capital and its sales came down heavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is at this time, appellant was informed of the fact of several adverse orders passed demanding duty and imposing penalties. Thereafter the appellant filed the statutory appeal before the Commissioner (A) and on the advice of the Central Excise officers, also preferred a separate application to condone the delay in filing the appeal by way of abundant caution. The appellate authority without affording an opportunity of being heard summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay by holding that the Commissioner (A) has no power to condone delay beyond the maximum period of 30 days from the due date for filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore and the CESTAT Bangal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said order. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) arbitrarily rejected the appeal as time barred despite the direction of the CESTAT to decide the appeal and this tantamount to judicial misconduct on the part of the Commissioner (A) not to comply with the directions of the higher authorities. He further submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the spirit of Section 35 of the Central excise Act, 1944, which provides that the appeal before the Commissioner (A) can be filed within 60 days of the date of communication of such decision or order. He further submitted that in this case, the appellant was not aware of any order against them and they only came to know about some adverse order has been passed against them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel further submitted that when they do not get the copy of the orders passed by the original authority, thereafter they filed the appeals on the basis of photocopy of the order. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR vehemently supported the impugned order and further submitted that impugned order is in accordance with law as the learned Commissioner (A) does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. In the present case of the appellants before the Commissioner (A) filed the appeals after an inordinate delay and the Commissioner (A) has rightly rejected all the appeals at the threshold without going into the merit of the case. He further submitted that Tribunal vide its order dated 20.5.2014 has only remanded the matter to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said RTI application, the department vide its letter dated 25.8.2016 informed the appellant that out of 8 orders, 3 orders were received by one Shri P. V. Joseph, Manager and Shri Raju. M.K of M/s. Southern Electromag Pvt. Ltd. and with regard to 5 other orders, which were desptached but are not seen returned by the postal authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even Mr.P. V. Joseph and Shri Raju.M.K are not the employees of the appellant during the relevant time as per the records produced by him. 7.1 After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed in violation of the Division Benchs deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
