2009 (2) TMI 558 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of 2 months and 24 days - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - time Limitation -

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Review of Commissioner's decision by Committee of Commissioners

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The judgment revolves around the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue, seeking to condone a delay of 2 months and 24 days in filing an appeal. The Revenue based its grounds on a decision by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore, regarding the availability of credit when packing material is not used for the final product but for raw materials. The Committee of Commissioners initially found no issue with the original order-in-appeal but later reconsidered based on the CESTAT decision. The Tribunal emphasized that there are no provisions for a second Committee of Commissioners to reassess a decision already accepted by the first committee. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal held that once a Review Committee decides not to file an appeal, they become functus officio, and there is no legal provision to revisit their decision. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, as well as the stay application and appeal.

Review of Commissioner's Decision by Committee of Commissioners:
The Tribunal highlighted that the Committee of Commissioners initially accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and decided against filing an appeal. However, upon reviewing the matter in light of the CESTAT decision, they directed the lower authority to file an appeal and seek condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not permissible for another committee to reconsider a decision already accepted by a prior committee. Referring to legal precedent, the Tribunal reiterated that once a decision is made not to file an appeal, it cannot be revisited, and any application for condonation of delay on that basis cannot be entertained. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently the stay application and appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of condonation of delay in filing appeals and the limitations on reviewing decisions by Committees of Commissioners. It underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and the finality of decisions made by competent authorities, emphasizing the principles of functus officio in such matters.