2004 (4) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against Order-in-Appeal, sufficiency of reasons for condoning delay, interpretation of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.

In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, the issue revolved around the application by Revenue for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 217/2003, dated 31-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, represented by Shri U. Raja Ram, JDR, argued that the delay was due to procedural reasons and should be condoned. On the other hand, Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate for the Respondent, contended that the reasons provided were insufficient. The key point of contention was whether the delay was justifiable under the provisions of the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and found that the impugned Order was received by the Commissioner on 6-8-2003 and accepted on 23-9-2003. Despite ample time available, the Revenue failed to obtain the Chief Commissioner's opinion within the specified time limit as required by Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any substantial reason for the delay other than citing procedural issues. Referring to Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal emphasized that appeals must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order, with provisions for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal clarified that the Chief Commissioner does not possess statutory authority under Section 35B, and delay cannot be attributed to procedural steps under statutory provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, highlighted the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed under the Central Excise Act for filing appeals and the necessity of providing valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the need for parties to demonstrate sufficient cause when requesting extensions or condonations in legal proceedings.