ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J).
1. Both these appeals are on the same issue and therefore, are being taken up together for disposal.
2. Both the appeals are filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed as time-barred.
3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the appellants. Appellants filed the appeals against the Adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dismissed their appeals as time-barred.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The contention of the appellants is that the Adjudication order was passed on 31-10-2000 and was issued on 23-11-2000. The copy of the order was received by M/s. Dee Pharma Limited at their office address on 25-1-2001. The appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-4-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) issued notice of hearing for 21-2-2003 on the stay application. The appellants made a request for an adjournment. The Commissioner (Appeals) however adjourned the case for 12-3-2003. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. The contention of the appellants is that no opportunity was granted to them to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The Commissioner (appeals) has taken into consideration that the adjudication order was pasted on 22-12-2002 at their factory premises which was lying closed. As the factory was lying closed, the Adjudication Order was also served on the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that there is no delay in filing the appeals.
6. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities,
7. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The contention of the appellants is that the Adjudication order was received by them on 25-1-2001. If this date is taken into consideration, then there is no delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellants received adjudication order at their office address under the cover of letter issued on 23-1-2001.
8. The Revenue is taking into consideration the date of the communication of the adjudication order as 22-12-2000 when this order was pasted at the factory premises of the appellants. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that their factory was closed during that period. In these circumstances, we find that as the adjudication order was received by the appellants on 25-1-2001 at their office address, therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. We further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellants before dismissing the appeal as time-barred to explain the delay in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and hence set aside, The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
9. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.