2004 (3) TMI 512 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay, Decision on merits

Delay in filing appeal:
The judgment addresses the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeals as time-barred, noting a delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal. The Tribunal considered the grounds for the delay, including a death in the family of the counsel for the appellants, and ultimately allowed the application for condonation of delay after being pending for over five years.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal analyzed the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal, such as the death in the family of the counsel for the appellants. Despite the delay being beyond the permissible limit set by the Commissioner (Appeals) at three months, the Tribunal found it to be a fit case for condonation of delay and allowed the application, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellants.

Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay:
The judgment highlights that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to condone the delay up to three months at the relevant time. The appellants had sought condonation of delay citing their counsel's accident. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to reject the application for condonation of delay, deeming it unjustified, and emphasized the importance of deciding cases on merits rather than solely on procedural grounds.

Decision on merits:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the case on its merits but had rejected the appeals solely based on the delay in filing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, ensuring that the appellants would have a fair opportunity for a fresh hearing before a new order is passed. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough consideration of the case beyond procedural aspects.