2004 (7) TMI 584 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority.
2. Allegation of denial of natural justice.
3. Claim of a strong case on merits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority
The appeal in question was filed with a delay of three days before the lower appellate authority, which led to its rejection as time-barred. The appellant did not seek condonation of this delay, which was an admitted fact. The dismissal of the appeal due to being time-barred was considered justified under the circumstances. However, in the present appeal, the appellants alleged denial of natural justice by the lower appellate authority, claiming that the issue of limitation was not considered during the final hearing. Despite being represented, the appellants did not raise the issue of limitation or apply for condonation of the delay, resulting in the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. The appellants also contended a strong case on merits, which, although not sufficient for condonation of delay, influenced the decision to remit the case back to the lower appellate authority for further consideration.

Issue 2: Allegation of denial of natural justice
The appellants argued that they were not given a fair opportunity by the lower appellate authority as the issue of limitation was not addressed during the final hearing. While the appellants were represented, they failed to bring up the delay issue or seek condonation. The lower appellate authority found the appeal to be time-barred and rejected it accordingly. In the current appeal, the appellants claimed that their strong case on merits should be considered. This claim, although not a basis for condonation of delay, influenced the decision to set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the appellants to seek condonation of the delay and proceed as per the law.

Issue 3: Claim of a strong case on merits
The appellants asserted that they had a strong case on merits, although this alone did not warrant condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Despite the strong case claim, the delay issue was not addressed before the lower appellate authority, leading to the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal, considering the submissions from both sides, decided to remand the case back to the lower appellate authority to provide the appellants with an opportunity to seek condonation of the delay and proceed further in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, giving the appellants a chance to rectify the delay issue and present their case on merits before the lower appellate authority.