2008 (1) TMI 797 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal rejection on the ground of being time-barred

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing that it was filed beyond the limitation period specified under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner noted that the Order-In-Original (OIO) was passed on 8-3-07 and received by the appellants on 16-3-07. The appeals were filed on 13-6-07, with a delay of 30 days. The reason for the delay was attributed to the hospitalization and subsequent rest advised for the General Manager, who was responsible for excise-related work. The Commissioner opined that the reason provided for the delay was not justifiable for a large company with multiple employees, as the absence of one employee should not hinder the company's activities. Consequently, the Commissioner refused to condone the delay and rejected the appeal solely based on being time-barred.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal, however, disagreed with the Commissioner's reasoning. The Tribunal observed that the General Manager underwent knee replacement surgery on 6th April, 2007, and was advised rest thereafter. The Tribunal found fault with the Commissioner's stance that the delay after the relevant date needed to be explained, emphasizing that unforeseen circumstances such as illness cannot be predicted. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that due to the surgery and subsequent recovery period, the General Manager was unable to attend to the company's affairs promptly, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the delay fell within the condonable period, the Tribunal directed the appellate authority to condone the delay and remanded the matter back for a decision on the appeal's merits. Additionally, the Tribunal disposed of the stay petition in light of the decision to condone the delay and proceed with the appeal on its merits.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of justifying delays in filing appeals, especially in cases where unforeseen circumstances such as illness or medical procedures affect the timely submission of appeals. The Tribunal's decision to overturn the Commissioner's rejection of the appeal based on being time-barred underscores the need for a nuanced consideration of the reasons behind delays, particularly when genuine impediments beyond the appellant's control are involved.