1985 (5) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Appellate Collector.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for excluding time in computing limitation.
3. Exclusion of time under Section 14 based on preparatory steps for filing the appeal.
4. Validity of the order of the Collector (Appeals) due to lack of personal hearing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Timeliness of filing the appeal before the Appellate Collector
The appellants filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. Despite being misled by their Advocate into filing a revision petition to the Government first, the Tribunal held that the appeal before the Appellate Collector was not filed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no discretion available for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Collector.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act
The appellants argued for the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude certain periods in computing limitation for filing the appeal. Section 14 allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in court without jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal noted that even after excluding the relevant period, the appeal remained significantly beyond the time limit, rendering the argument invalid.

Issue 3: Exclusion of time under Section 14 based on preparatory steps
The appellants contended that the period from the date of receiving the order to the filing of the revision petition should be excluded based on preparatory steps, citing a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the time taken for filing the revision petition far exceeded what could be considered as preparatory steps, making the exclusion unreasonable.

Issue 4: Validity of the order of the Collector (Appeals)
The appellants challenged the order of the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds of lack of a personal hearing. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal was time-barred, and there was no provision for condonation of delay at that time. Therefore, the absence of a personal hearing did not invalidate the order of the Collector (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal based on the issues discussed above.