Orissa Construction Corpn. vs. Commissioner,Central Excise,Customs And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that their appeal was still pending, as evidenced by their submissions in a subsequent adjudication proceeding. The Court noted that while column 2 of the memorandum of appeal contained the petitioner's general address, column 5, designated for "Address to which notices may be sent to the appellant," contained a different address. The revenue admitted to sending the order to an address different from the one specified in column 5. Given the recurring nature of the dispute concerning the classification of goods, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow the writ petition. The Court directed the opposite party to provide a fresh certified copy of the order dated 21.12.2017 to the petitioner within fifteen days. The petitioner was granted liberty to file their appeal against this order within 30 days of receiving it before the Central Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Odisha Construction Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, C. Ex. & Customs, Bhubaneswar, to provide a copy of an order dated 21.12.2017. The petitioner argued that while filing an appeal, they provided a specific address for receiving notices in column 5 of the memorandum of appeal, distinct from their general address. They were unaware that their appeal had been decided until a subsequent adjudication order was passed. The revenue contended that the order was sent to the address provided in column 2 of the appeal memorandum, which was also the petitioner's general address. The court noted a discrepancy between the address for notices and the general address provided by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was obligated to send the order dated 21.12.2017 to the address specified in column 5 of the memorandum of appeal, as per Section 35A(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or to the general address provided in column 2. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that column 5 of the appeal memorandum, which specifies the "Address to which notices may be sent to the appellant," was intended for receiving official communications, including orders. They relied on Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the prescribed form for appeals. They were unaware of the order until much later, indicating it was not sent to the designated address. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that Section 35A(5) of the Act requires communication of the order to the appellant, and they sent it to the address provided in column 2 of the appeal memorandum, which they claimed was also the petitioner's general address and the address mentioned in column 5.