2012 (9) TMI 890 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 1066 days - Tribunal condoned delay - Held that - The chronology of events leading to the delay may succinctly be set out. On 26-7-2004 the assessee approached the Settlement Commissioner (even before final order was passed by the Commissioner on 30-7-2004). The Settlement Commissioner admitted the application of the assessee on 31-5-2005. Against the order dated 31-5-2005, the Revenue filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed in limini. Undaunted the Revenue carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which also ended in dismissal on 10-7-2006. By the order dated 17-1-2007 the Settlement Commissioner rejected the assessee s application for settlement. It is not clear from the record as to when the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 17-1-2007 rejecting the assessee s application for settlement, was communicated to the assessee. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid circumstances the CESTAT was correct to exercise its discretion in condoning the delay. Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) condoning a delay of 1066 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame after the order by the Commissioner on 30-7-2004. The appellant filed the appeal on 11-10-2007 instead of 7-9-2004, resulting in the significant delay.

The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to various events in the chronology of the case. The appellant had approached the Settlement Commissioner even before the final order by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the Settlement Commissioner admitted the application on 31-5-2005. The Revenue filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the Settlement Commissioner's order, which was dismissed. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. Finally, on 17-1-2007, the Settlement Commissioner rejected the appellant's application for settlement. The exact date of communication of this rejection to the appellant was not clear from the record.

The High Court, in its analysis, found no substantial error or perversity in the decision of CESTAT to condone the delay based on the circumstances and events leading to the delay. The Court concluded that there was no ground for appellate interference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage by the High Court.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to timelines for filing appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the discretion of the appellate authorities to condone delays based on the circumstances and merits of each case.