CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad
COURT
Appeal No. : E/13852/2013-SM
(E/COD/13567/2013, E/Stay/13568/2013)
Arising out of : OIA No.RS/395/SRT-II/06, dt. 30.11.2006.
Passed by : Commissioner (Appeals),
Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II.
For approval and signature :
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon ble Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Appellant (s) : M/s. Ashok Organic Industries Ltd.
Represented by : Shri S.R. Dixit (Advocate)
Respondent (s) : C.C.E. & S.T. Surat-ii
Represented by : Shri Manoj Kutty (A.R.)
CORAM :
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon ble Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 09.06.2014
Date of Decision: 11.07.2014
ORDER No. A/11320/2014, dt. 11.07.2014
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran;
This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the bench. The delay is of approximately of eight years.
2. Ld. Counsel would draw my attention to the various correspondences entered by the appellant with the authorities and submit that the Order-in-appeal is served upon the appellant on 30.09.2013. It is his submission that the appellant s factory is closed from 2000 due to severe financial hardship and various techno-commercial reasons. Appellant s factory was also taken over by the ARCIL under SARFAESI Act on 23.11.2004 and no correspondences were received by the appellant. It is his submission that the managing director of the appellant has filed an affidavit in support of such a claim. It is also his submission that none of the earlier employees connected with the excise work of the appellant are employed by the company and nor did the revenue bring to their knowledge, the fact that Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 was received by the company. He prays for condoning the delay and disposing the appeal on merits.
3. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would produce a letter written by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat-II and draw my attention to letter dt. 12.11.2008 and the appellant s letter dt. 06.01.2009. It is his submission that the appellant was aware of the Order-in-appeal was passed despite that they did not pursue the legal remedies available to them.
4. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records.
5. The only question which needs to be answered by me is whether the Order-in-appeal No.RS/395/SRT-II/2006, dt. 30.11.2006 was received by the appellant earlier or was received by him only on 30.09.2013.
6. It is the claim of the appellant that they had not received the Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 earlier. In my view, the appellant s stand in the application for the condonation of delay and the affidavit filed by one of their directors seems to be at variance, from the facts which transpires from the letter received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Surat-II. I find that the Assistant Commissioner vide letter no.MP/20/AR-V/Ashok/2008-09/3549, 3550 & 3551, dt. 12.11.2008 informed the appellant M/s. Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. about recovery of Government dues. In the said letter dt. 12.11.2008, I find that there is a specific mention of the Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 (impugned in this proceedings). It is noted from the said letter that the revenue had addressed the letter to the factory of the appellant at Ankleshwar, their office at Baroda and their main office at Mumbai. On receipt of such a letter, vide letter dt. 06.01.2009, the Baroda office of the appellant, summarily informed the Assistant Commissioner that their assets are all taken over and the plants are closed and the department may get in touch with the ARCIL for recovery of their dues, if any. In the said letter, the appellant had not indicated as to non-receipt of Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 nor has requested the department to give certified copies for pursuing the legal remedies available. The letter dt. 06.01.2009 of the appellant directing the department to approach the ARCIL for recovery, if any, is nothing short of acknowledgement of the dues to Government of India.
7. In my view, appellant has not made out any case for the condonation of delay for the reason that when they were aware that there were dues which are sought to be recovered by the revenue in 2008, they did not take any action for pursing the legal remedies available by them. Accordingly, the defence put forth by the Ld. Counsel seems to be wanting on merits.
8. The appellant has not made out any case for condonation of the delay accordingly application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, stay petition and appeal also stands dismissed.
(Pronounced on 11.07.2014)
(H.K. Thakur) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
AVSP
1
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad
COURT
Appeal No. : E/13852/2013-SM
(E/COD/13567/2013, E/Stay/13568/2013)
Arising out of : OIA No.RS/395/SRT-II/06, dt. 30.11.2006.
Passed by : Commissioner (Appeals),
Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II.
For approval and signature :
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon ble Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Appellant (s) : M/s. Ashok Organic Industries Ltd.
Represented by : Shri S.R. Dixit (Advocate)
Respondent (s) : C.C.E. & S.T. Surat-ii
Represented by : Shri Manoj Kutty (A.R.)
CORAM :
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon ble Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 09.06.2014
Date of Decision: 11.07.2014
ORDER No. A/11320/2014, dt. 11.07.2014
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran;
This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the bench. The delay is of approximately of eight years.
2. Ld. Counsel would draw my attention to the various correspondences entered by the appellant with the authorities and submit that the Order-in-appeal is served upon the appellant on 30.09.2013. It is his submission that the appellant s factory is closed from 2000 due to severe financial hardship and various techno-commercial reasons. Appellant s factory was also taken over by the ARCIL under SARFAESI Act on 23.11.2004 and no correspondences were received by the appellant. It is his submission that the managing director of the appellant has filed an affidavit in support of such a claim. It is also his submission that none of the earlier employees connected with the excise work of the appellant are employed by the company and nor did the revenue bring to their knowledge, the fact that Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 was received by the company. He prays for condoning the delay and disposing the appeal on merits.
3. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would produce a letter written by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat-II and draw my attention to letter dt. 12.11.2008 and the appellant s letter dt. 06.01.2009. It is his submission that the appellant was aware of the Order-in-appeal was passed despite that they did not pursue the legal remedies available to them.
4. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records.
5. The only question which needs to be answered by me is whether the Order-in-appeal No.RS/395/SRT-II/2006, dt. 30.11.2006 was received by the appellant earlier or was received by him only on 30.09.2013.
6. It is the claim of the appellant that they had not received the Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 earlier. In my view, the appellant s stand in the application for the condonation of delay and the affidavit filed by one of their directors seems to be at variance, from the facts which transpires from the letter received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Surat-II. I find that the Assistant Commissioner vide letter no.MP/20/AR-V/Ashok/2008-09/3549, 3550 & 3551, dt. 12.11.2008 informed the appellant M/s. Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. about recovery of Government dues. In the said letter dt. 12.11.2008, I find that there is a specific mention of the Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 (impugned in this proceedings). It is noted from the said letter that the revenue had addressed the letter to the factory of the appellant at Ankleshwar, their office at Baroda and their main office at Mumbai. On receipt of such a letter, vide letter dt. 06.01.2009, the Baroda office of the appellant, summarily informed the Assistant Commissioner that their assets are all taken over and the plants are closed and the department may get in touch with the ARCIL for recovery of their dues, if any. In the said letter, the appellant had not indicated as to non-receipt of Order-in-appeal dt. 30.11.2006 nor has requested the department to give certified copies for pursuing the legal remedies available. The letter dt. 06.01.2009 of the appellant directing the department to approach the ARCIL for recovery, if any, is nothing short of acknowledgement of the dues to Government of India.
7. In my view, appellant has not made out any case for the condonation of delay for the reason that when they were aware that there were dues which are sought to be recovered by the revenue in 2008, they did not take any action for pursing the legal remedies available by them. Accordingly, the defence put forth by the Ld. Counsel seems to be wanting on merits.
8. The appellant has not made out any case for condonation of the delay accordingly application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, stay petition and appeal also stands dismissed.
(Pronounced on 11.07.2014)
(H.K. Thakur) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
AVSP
1
No comments:
Post a Comment