2005 (5) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Time limit for filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Condonation of delay, Receipt of Order-in-Original by authorized representative

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with the issue of the time limit for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as it was filed after 90 days of the serving of the Order-in-Original. The Appellants argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal as their authorized representative received the Order-in-Original later than the date mentioned by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal observed that the appeal was clearly time-barred as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to condone the delay for an additional 30 days on sufficient cause being shown, but in this case, the delay exceeded the permissible limit.

Regarding the issue of condonation of delay, the Tribunal emphasized that the Appellants did not dispute the date on which the Order-in-Original was handed over to their authorized representative. Despite the Appellants' contention that the representative only informed them of the order after four months, the Tribunal held that this did not constitute serving of the order on that date. The Tribunal highlighted that the mere fact that the representative brought the order to the notice of the Appellants after a significant delay did not alter the time limit for filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal.

The judgment also addressed the issue of the receipt of the Order-in-Original by the authorized representative of the Appellants. The Tribunal noted that the representative had been authorized to receive orders on behalf of the Appellants and that there was no dispute regarding the date on which the representative received the order. Despite the Appellants' argument that the representative handed over the order to them at a later date, the Tribunal maintained that the appeal was time-barred based on the date of the original receipt of the order by the authorized representative. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no grounds to overturn the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the timeline of events and the relevant legal provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the appeal being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and clarified that delays in informing the Appellants of the order did not excuse the failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period.