2005 (8) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals.

Analysis:
The appellant in this case received the Order-in-Original on 24-11-2003 and filed the appeal on 23-2-2004. The appeal was presented after the expiry of the 60-day limitation period, but the appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the extended period of limitation due to specific circumstances. The appellant explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the dealing Assistant leaving the job in October 2003, causing the papers to be untraceable. The appellant requested the delay to be condoned, and the appeal to be remanded to the Commissioner of Appeals for a decision on merit.

The Departmental Representative (D.R.) supported the impugned order, arguing that the appeal was filed after the expiration of the limitation period, making it non-maintainable before the Commissioner of Appeals.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Limitation Act, which allow for the filing of suits, appeals, or applications on the day the court reopens if the prescribed period expires on a day when the court is closed. In this case, the Office of the Commissioner of Appeals was closed on 21st and 22nd February 2004, with the appeal being presented on 23rd February 2004, within the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay provided by the appellant to be satisfactory, especially regarding the unavailability of papers due to the dealing Assistant's departure. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Appeals for disposal according to the law.

This judgment, delivered on 31-8-2005 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, highlights the importance of justifying delays in filing appeals and the application of relevant legal provisions to determine the timeliness of appeals before appellate authorities.