2008 (11) TMI 470 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal rejected as barred by limitation.
2. Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner.
3. Condonation of delay under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation due to a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal challenging a demand of duty and penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The lower appellate authority found that the delay was not due to sufficient cause and accordingly rejected the application for condonation of delay and the appeal. The appellant argued that the delay occurred because the proprietor was not well-versed with the rules and was away from his native town. The Commissioner could have exercised discretion and condoned the delay as per Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act.

2. The appellant's consultant submitted that the appeal could not be filed within 60 days as the concerned person did not hand over the papers in time for filing the appeal. The delay of 12 days was beyond the sixty-day period specified in the Act. The Judicial Member did not contest the submission made by the consultant and, after careful consideration, found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority for a decision on merits. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

3. The Judicial Member concluded that the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal beyond the sixty-day period provided in Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act should be condoned as sufficient cause existed. Since the impugned order did not consider the merits of the appeal, it was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits by the lower appellate authority. The appeal was allowed through remand, emphasizing the importance of considering sufficient cause for delay in such cases.