2003 (5) TMI 398 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file original letter of authorization for appeal.
2. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.
3. Misconception regarding filing a common appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner filed an appeal against a combined order, but it was dismissed due to the original letter of authorization not being submitted. The department admitted the failure, but it was found that the objection raised was not directly related to the issue. Upon verifying the file, it was confirmed that the Commissioner had indeed authorized the appeal. The failure to produce the original authorization was deemed a curable defect, and the appeal was restored for hearing.

2. Three other appeals were filed with a request to condone a delay of three years and four months without providing any grounds for the delay. These appeals were found to be exact replicas of an earlier application seeking to rectify a mistake, making the delay condonation unnecessary. The department argued that they believed one appeal was sufficient due to a common order, but Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules clearly states otherwise. The Commissioner's file revealed that he had instructed multiple appeals to be filed due to multiple respondents, but the appeals were only filed two years later. The Tribunal found no justification to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred.

3. The Commissioner's clear instructions for filing multiple appeals were disregarded, leading to a significant delay in filing the appeals. Despite the department's belief that one appeal sufficed, the Tribunal held that the delay was inexcusable. The lack of enforcement of the Commissioner's orders and the administrative slackness within the office were noted, but these factors did not justify the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed due to being filed well beyond the permissible time limit, as there was no valid reason to condone the delay.