Parvez Ahmad Ansari Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)
The appeal was filed by Parvez Ahmad Ansari against Order-in-Appeal No. 310/ST/ALLD/2024 dated 05.06.2024, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad, rejected the appeal as time-barred without deciding it on merits. The Appellant submitted that he had neither been served the Show Cause Notice nor received notices of personal hearing, resulting in the Order-in-Original dated 11.03.2023 being passed ex parte. The order was dispatched by Registered Post but returned undelivered. According to the Appellant, he first became aware of the demand and the adjudication order when Form GST DRC-07A was uploaded on the GST Portal, and a copy of the Order-in-Original was subsequently served on him on 30.01.2024. He filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 28.02.2024, which he contended was within the statutory period of 60 days.
The Department submitted para-wise comments along with a Panchnama dated 27.04.2023 concerning service of the Order-in-Original by Chaspa at the Appellant’s premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) had treated 27.04.2023 as the date of service and consequently found the appeal filed on 28.02.2024 to be barred by limitation.
CESTAT examined the Panchnama and found that it had been drawn in the presence of two witnesses, one from Faizabad and another from Jaunpur. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant’s unit or residence was not existing at the location where the order was affixed. The witnesses also stated that when they asked about the Appellant or his firm, nobody knew about them, and the Appellant was not present when the order was affixed. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the adjudication order had not been communicated to the Appellant in a manner enabling him to file an appeal.
