2006 (2) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal filed beyond the time-limit permissible under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune dropping the demand related to unaccounted production and clearances. The respondent's advocate raised a plea on the ground of limitation, arguing that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time under Section 35E(4).

2. The respondent's advocate contended that the appeal was filed after the expiry of the three-month period from the date the review order was received by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-I. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case where a similar situation led to the dismissal of the appeal due to being filed beyond the stipulated time limit.

3. The department's representative argued that the appeal was within time, as the review order was received by the relevant authority, Commissioner Central Excise, Pune-I, within the three-month period. An alternate plea was made for condonation of the delay, citing a Supreme Court decision allowing some latitude for delays in filing appeals by the state.

4. The respondent's advocate highlighted that there is no provision for condoning delay under Section 35E, referring to a Tribunal decision that the Tribunal lacks the power to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the allowed period under Section 35E(4).

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time under Section 35E(4) based on the facts of the case and a precedent set by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable due to the limitation issue.

6. As the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case. The plea for condonation of delay was also rejected, emphasizing the absence of such a provision under Section 35E(4) and citing a Tribunal decision supporting this stance.

7. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as having been filed beyond the permissible time, in line with the findings based on the limitation issue discussed during the proceedings. The judgment was pronounced on 27-2-2006.