2007 (8) TMI 636 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground that the appellants have filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the Section and that the Commissioner (A) is not empowered to admit an appeal beyond the period of 90 days

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed as filed beyond the limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Maintainability of appeals before the Commissioner (A) due to filing before the Tribunal.
3. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude time spent in a wrong forum.
4. Interpretation of limitation provisions under Central Excise Act and Customs Act.
5. Comparison of judgments regarding condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (A) citing the limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants had filed beyond the 90-day period, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

2. The issue of maintainability arose due to the appellants initially filing the appeal before the Tribunal instead of the Commissioner (A). The mistake occurred as there was no covering letter specifying the correct forum for appeal. After the Tribunal rejected the appeal, the appellants filed before the Commissioner (A) within 10 days of the Tribunal's order, arguing that time spent in the wrong forum should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. The appellant relied on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court case of Pasupati Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Vijay Brothers, to support the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding time spent in bona fide proceedings before a wrong forum. The Commissioner (A) did not examine this issue, leading to the appeal.

4. The judgment discussed the specific limitation periods under the Central Excise Act and Customs Act, emphasizing that these are special legislations without provisions for applying the Limitation Act. The JDR argued against the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude time spent before a wrong forum, citing relevant case law.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the legal principles underlying the cited judgments, concluding that the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned by applying the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal found that excluding the time spent before the wrong forum would render the appeals filed before the Commissioner (A) within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (A) for further consideration on merits.