ORDER
T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
Page 0293
1. Heard both sides.
2. This appeal is filed against an Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has heard the matter at length on merits, but surprisingly dismissed on the ground of limitation without touching the other aspects of the case. The issue involved in this case is reversal of Cenvat credit. It is contended by the appellants that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and placed reliance on the following cases.
(a) Standard Treads Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin
Page 0294
(b) Kuber Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad 2001 (137) ELT 951 (Tri. – Chennai)
(c) Jamuna Industries v. CCE, Jaipur-I 2002 (148) ELT 1144 (Tri. – Del.)
4. The facts on record show that there was a delay of ten (10) days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which is within thirty (30) days period. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay basing on the facts explained and keeping in view the liberal approach of the Courts in doing justice by adopting the procedural laws not as bottlenecks, but to facilitate the substantial law in smooth way.
5. Having convinced about the same, it is felt expedient to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall hear the parties once again and dispose of the case on merits. The delay of ten (10) day is hereby condoned.
6. Appeal is allowed in remand in the above terms.
(Pronounced in Court)