2008 (10) TMI 477 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal for 47 days; Condonation of delay; Interpretation of Sections 35B and 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by the Revenue seeking condonation of a 47-day delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue argued that the delay occurred due to the time taken by the Committee of Commissioners sitting at different places to prepare the necessary documents for the appeal. The Adjudication Order was received on 6-5-2008, and the appeal was filed on 22-9-2008. The Appellate Tribunal noted that Section 35B of the Act allows the Committee of Commissioners to direct an appeal to be filed against an order deemed improper, within 3 months of the order being communicated. Section 35E, on the other hand, deals with the powers of the Committee of Chief Commissioners or Commissioners of Central Excise to review orders, not the Committee of Commissioners as mentioned in Section 35B(2).

The Respondent raised objections to the condonation of delay, arguing that there was no sufficient cause shown by the Revenue for the delay. The Respondent highlighted that the Committee of Commissioners passed the review order after 3 months of receiving the order, which they claimed was impermissible under the law. The Respondent referred to Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to support their argument. However, the Tribunal found that the objection raised by the Respondent had no merit, as Section 35E did not apply to the filing of appeals by the Revenue, as specified under Section 35B(2) of the Act.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the Revenue in the delay. The Tribunal accepted the explanation provided by the Revenue that the delay was due to the time taken by the Committee of Commissioners to prepare the necessary documents for the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that there was sufficient cause for not meeting the stipulated deadline. The Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 15-10-2008.