2002 (11) TMI 639 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing departmental appeal before CEGAT due to incorrect address, power of CEGAT to condone delay under Section 35E, requirement of evidence for postal delivery, application filing procedure under CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, applicability of case laws in opposing delay condonation.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing a departmental appeal before CEGAT due to an incorrect address on the forwarding letter. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I sent the appeal papers to the Assistant Registrar, CEGAT, Mumbai, but the address was incorrect. The appeal was not received by CEGAT, leading to the application for condonation of delay. The department argued that the delay should be condoned under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing the need for review based on the Board's order.

2. The respondent's counsel argued against condoning the delay, stating that CEGAT lacks the power to condone delays under Section 35E. Additionally, they highlighted the absence of evidence regarding postal delivery and emphasized the procedural requirement under Rule 7 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The counsel referred to specific case laws to support their opposition to the delay condonation application.

3. After considering both arguments and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found that the appeal papers were sent with an incorrect address by a junior officer, causing the delay. The Tribunal noted the lack of follow-up or enquiry regarding the appeal's delivery status over two years. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner for not ensuring the correct address and for delegating such an important task to a junior officer.

4. The Tribunal acknowledged the merit in the respondent's counsel's argument that CEGAT lacks the authority to condone delays in filing applications under Section 35E(4), as established by a previous Larger Bench decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the rejection of the main application filed beyond the stipulated three-month time limit.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal recommended that the Board should establish a procedure to ensure timely implementation of its directives for filing applications following the review of orders by Commissioners within the prescribed three-month limit. This case underscores the importance of procedural diligence and adherence to timelines in legal matters before appellate tribunals like CEGAT.