2002 (11) TMI 713 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing an appeal against the Commissioner's Order dated 28-2-2001 under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal by M/s. D.C.M. Engineering Products against the Commissioner's Order dated 28-2-2001, confirming the demand of Central Excise duty on resin coated sand. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the Commissioner's mistake in mentioning the market rate instead of the assessable value, which they repeatedly tried to rectify through correspondence with the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner. They claimed that pursuing rectification constituted sufficient cause for the delay.

The respondent opposed the appeal, highlighting the abnormal delay in filing the appeal, which was lodged in July 2002, well beyond the three-month limit specified by Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent contended that the appellant's efforts to rectify the mistake were not a satisfactory reason to condone the delay.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that the Commissioner's Order dated 28-2-2001 confirmed the duty on resin coated sand at specific assessable values for different periods. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant disagreed with the assessable values, the proper course was to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, not engage in correspondence with the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and concluded that correspondence with the department regarding the adjudication order did not justify the delay. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file within the prescribed time limit and insufficient justification for the delay, emphasizing that engaging in correspondence with the department was not a valid reason for the delay in approaching the Appellate Tribunal.