2008 (9) TMI 842 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation sought by Revenue based on Chief Commissioner's direction to review appeal decision after initial acceptance by Committee of Commissioners.

Analysis:
1. Delay Condonation Request by Revenue:
The Revenue sought condonation of a 98-day delay in filing an appeal due to the Chief Commissioner's direction to review the decision after the Committee of Commissioners had initially accepted the Order-in-Appeal. The reason given was the pendency of a similar case before the Apex Court, which later ruled in favor of the department. The delay condonation plea was based on this directive.

2. Contentions of the Learned Counsel:
The learned Counsel argued that the Committee of Commissioners' decision not to file an appeal in their review Order dated 4-4-2007 was final and that the Chief Commissioner lacked the authority to overturn it. Citing legal precedents such as the case of CCE v. Carborandum Universal Ltd., it was argued that subsequent reviews by the Department do not justify accepting a delay in filing an appeal.

3. Legal Precedents and Tribunal Decisions:
The Counsel referred to various judgments, including the case of United Telecoms Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore, and the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Jalandhar v. British Motor Car Co. Ltd., to support the argument that citing subsequent decisions for delay condonation is not acceptable. Similar views were upheld by benches in Chennai and Delhi, emphasizing that decisions not to file appeals are final.

4. Authority of Chief Commissioner and Tribunal's Decision:
The learned SDR contended that the Chief Commissioner had the power to recommend filing an appeal if unsatisfied with the Committee of Commissioners' review order. However, the Tribunal found no legal provision empowering the Chief Commissioner to override the Committee's decision. Relying on the absence of such provisions in the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application and subsequently dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that once the Department had decided not to file an appeal, it was final, and the Chief Commissioner did not have the authority to intervene in the Committee's decision-making process. The legal precedents cited by the Counsel supported this position, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay application and the dismissal of the appeal.