2002 (2) TMI 1001 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal.
2. Opportunity of hearing not afforded to the appellants.
3. Consideration of appeal on merits.

Timeliness of filing the appeal:
The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a duty demand and penalty on the appellants, who then filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) noted a delay of more than seven months in filing the appeal, exceeding the statutory period. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants did not seek condonation of the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere, emphasizing that the appellants failed to comply with the prescribed time limits and did not petition for condonation of delay. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' reliance on previous decisions, highlighting the distinctions in those cases and the present situation. The appeal was consequently dismissed due to lack of merit.

Opportunity of hearing not afforded to the appellants:
The appellants' counsel argued that the appellants were not given an opportunity of hearing before the dismissal of their appeal as time-barred. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not file a petition for condonation of delay, and thus, the question of denial of natural justice did not arise. The Tribunal differentiated this case from previous decisions where opportunities for hearing were not provided, as in this instance, the appellants did not take necessary procedural steps to request a hearing. Therefore, the contention regarding the denial of an opportunity of hearing was deemed invalid by the Tribunal.

Consideration of appeal on merits:
The appellants did not request consideration of their appeal on merits, unlike in previous cases referenced by their counsel. The Tribunal clarified that in the absence of a plea to review the appeal on substantive grounds, the focus remained on the procedural aspects of timeliness and compliance with statutory provisions. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' failure to file a petition for condonation of delay precluded any examination of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants did not present a case for a review based on the substantive merits of the original decision.

---