9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 873 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay - Delay of 128 days - Review of order - Change of heart - Held that - As per Sec. 35B(5) of the Central Excise Act 1944 CESTAT can condone the delay in admitting an appeal after the relevant period specified in sub-section (3) or (4) of Sec. 35B if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within prescribed period. - appellant has not shown a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has also been rightly observed by Hon ble Gujarat High Court as per order dated 20-3-2013 in the present proceedings that the legal issues raised by the Revenue alone cannot form the sole basis for condonation of delay in the absence of any explanation whatsoever. A change in the opinion by the same Committee of Commissioners on reconsideration cannot be considered as a reasonable cause for seeking condonation when such a reconsideration itself is not legally correct. Accordingly we find no reason to condone the delay of 128 days in filing the appeal - Condonation denied.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay application filed by Revenue for reconsideration. 2. Review of decision by Committee of Commissioners. 3. Permissibility of condonation of delay. 4. Legal basis for condonation of delay. 5. Application of relevant case laws. Issue 1: Condonation of delay application filed by Revenue for reconsideration The case involves a Misc. Application filed by the Revenue in Appeal No. E/262/2012-DB seeking reconsideration of their condonation of delay application. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court remanded the COD proceedings back to the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Tribunal was directed to allow the Revenue to file an additional affidavit by a specified date for further consideration. Issue 2: Review of decision by Committee of Commissioners The Committee of Commissioners initially decided not to file an appeal against a specific order-in-appeal. However, upon re-examination, the Committee changed its decision and filed a condonation of delay application. The respondent argued that such a review of a decision taken earlier is impermissible, citing relevant case laws to support their stance. Issue 3: Permissibility of condonation of delay The Revenue sought condonation of a 128-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Central Excise Act and emphasized the requirement of a sufficient cause for condonation after the specified period. The Tribunal considered the timeline of events and the reasons presented by the Revenue in the Misc. Application. Issue 4: Legal basis for condonation of delay The Tribunal analyzed the legal principles governing condonation of delay, highlighting the importance of a valid reason for seeking such condonation. The Tribunal noted that a change in opinion by the same Committee of Commissioners, without a substantial change in circumstances, cannot serve as a reasonable cause for condonation. Issue 5: Application of relevant case laws Both parties relied on specific case laws to support their arguments regarding the condonation of delay. The Tribunal distinguished the applicability of the case laws cited by the parties to the present case, emphasizing the unique circumstances and legal framework governing the matter at hand. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the Misc. Applications and the appeal filed by the Revenue based on the observations made and the legal principles applied throughout the judgment.
|
