2006 (9) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal by Department - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Review - Committee of Commissioners

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation for filing appeals, classification of goods under different headings, non-payment of duty, department's belief regarding duty payment, Review Committee's role in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. Delay Condonation for Filing Appeals:
The department filed applications for condonation of delay in filing two appeals. One appeal was delayed by 316 days, and the other by 10 days. The appeals arose from show cause notices proposing to classify "backing cloth" under Chapter 59 of the CETA Schedule. The original authority confirmed duty demands and penalties against the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) for classification under Heading 52.06, citing a previous Apex Court judgment supporting their claim. The appellate Commissioner allowed the appeals, leading to the department challenging these orders.

2. Classification of Goods:
The department contested the appellate Commissioner's orders, claiming that they did not enable the recovery of duty under Heading 52.06, as duty had not been paid by the respondents. The Review Committee received a compliance report indicating non-payment of duty. The department belatedly filed appeals upon discovering this non-payment. The department's belief that the assessee had paid duty under Heading 52.06 was refuted by the appellate Commissioner's clear orders setting aside duty demands under Heading 59.01.

3. Department's Belief Regarding Duty Payment:
The department argued that they believed the assessee had paid duty under Heading 52.06 until the compliance report revealed otherwise. However, the Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing, emphasizing that the appellate Commissioner's orders clearly granted the reliefs sought by the assessee, including setting aside duty demands.

4. Review Committee's Role in Filing Appeals:
The Tribunal noted a new practice where the Review Committee reviewed orders and filed appeals, which was not within its purview. Once the review was completed, it was the jurisdictional Commissioner's responsibility to file appeals based on the Committee's decision. The Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation applications and consequently the appeals due to the department's failure to justify the delay adequately.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the department's delay condonation applications, highlighting the importance of clear orders and proper procedures in tax matters. The judgment underscores the significance of accurate classification of goods and timely payment of duties, emphasizing the need for departments to act promptly based on legal decisions and orders.