2008 (5) TMI 568 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Amendment of Section 35E of Central Excise Act reducing review period
- Applicability of amended provisions on review orders
- Interpretation of retrospective nature of amendments
- Time-barred appeals based on amended provisions

Analysis:
1. Amendment of Section 35E: The case involves an appeal against an order where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as time-barred due to an amendment in Section 35E of the Central Excise Act. The amendment reduced the period for review of orders passed by the adjudicating authority from one year to three months. The key contention is whether the review order was passed within the amended time limit.

2. Applicability of Amended Provisions: The Revenue argued that the review order was passed within the one-year period provided at the time the adjudication order was passed in 2006. They relied on a decision by the Bombay High Court stating that amendments without retrospective indication do not affect accrued rights. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the absence of a saving clause in the amendment makes any review order passed after the amendment beyond three months time-barred.

3. Interpretation of Retrospective Nature: The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Electrofronts v. Union of India was cited, emphasizing that the right of appeal is enforceable within the prescribed period of limitation. The judgment highlighted that the amendment to Section 35E is not retrospective and does not affect substantive rights accrued at the time of the original order. The judgment differentiated between procedural and substantive rights, concluding that the amendment does not impact substantive rights to file an appeal.

4. Time-barred Appeals: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as time-barred based on the amended provisions of Section 35E, requiring review orders to be passed within three months. However, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision unsustainable in light of the Bombay High Court's ruling. The Tribunal set aside the time-barred decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner to decide the appeals on their merits after providing an opportunity for hearing to the respondents.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the non-retrospective nature of the amendment to Section 35E, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing appeals. The decision sets a precedent for cases involving amendments to procedural provisions and upholds the principle that substantive rights should not be affected by procedural changes unless explicitly intended.