2003 (3) TMI 581 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.
2. Interpretation of Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Consideration of appeals as supplementary appeals.
4. Requirement of separate appeals for each aggrieved person as per Rule 6A(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.

Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay:
The Revenue filed two appeals accompanied by applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The Departmental Representative argued that since a single appeal was filed in time arising from a common impugned order, the appeals should be considered as supplementary appeals. However, the respondents contended that the appeals cannot be treated as supplementary since the appellants were not made parties in the main appeal. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, rejected the applications to condone the delay due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause shown by the Department, ultimately dismissing the appeals as time-barred.

Interpretation of Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Department argued that only one appeal was necessary under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules also supported filing one appeal against one Order-in-Original. However, the respondents highlighted that separate appeals should be filed for each aggrieved person as per Rule 6A(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions and case law references, concluding that the appeals could not be considered as supplementary appeals and were rightly dismissed due to the delay and lack of sufficient cause.

Consideration of appeals as supplementary appeals:
The Department argued that the appeals should be considered as supplementary appeals since they were related to the same impugned order. However, the respondents emphasized that the appellants were not parties in the main appeal, making the appeals distinct. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the view that supplementary appeals were procedural and required all parties to be included from the beginning, which was not the case in the present situation. Therefore, the appeals were not treated as supplementary, leading to their dismissal.

Requirement of separate appeals for each aggrieved person:
The respondents contended that Rule 6A(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules mandated separate appeals for each aggrieved person in case of an impugned order involving multiple individuals. The Tribunal considered this argument along with all submissions and case law references, ultimately deciding that the appeals were not to be treated as supplementary and dismissing them due to the delay and lack of sufficient cause shown by the Department.