2011 (8) TMI 1081 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - petitioner was granted liberty by CESTAT, who refused to condone the delay, to approach revisional authority, who can condone the delay if thinks fit and proper - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assail to order declining to condone delay under Central Excise Act, 1944.
Maintainability of appeal before CESTAT.
Condonation of delay by revisional authority.

Analysis:

1. Assail to Order Declining to Condone Delay:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order dated 17th February, 2011, where the revisional authority under the Central Excise Act, 1944 declined to condone the delay, citing it as non-condonable. The petitioner contended that they had approached the CESTAT, and the tribunal dismissed the appeal on 3rd October, 2008, directing the appellant to file a revision before the appropriate authority of the Central Government under Section 35-EE of the Act for condonation of delay if satisfied that the appeal was filed bonafide under proper legal advice. The High Court noted that the period consumed before the tribunal would stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court directed the revisional authority to reconsider the issue of condonation of delay, emphasizing that apart from this direction, no opinion was expressed on the merits of the condonation of delay or on the lis.

2. Maintainability of Appeal before CESTAT:
The tribunal had earlier dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on a decision of the Larger Bench. The Court did not delve into the merits of the appeal's maintainability but focused on the procedural aspect of directing the appellant to seek revision before the appropriate authority for condonation of delay. The judgment did not address the substantive issues of the appeal but rather dealt with the procedural requirements and the authority's discretion to condone the delay.

3. Condonation of Delay by Revisional Authority:
The main issue before the High Court was the refusal of the revisional authority to condone the delay. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the revisional authority, and remitted the matter for reconsideration on the issue of condonation of delay. The judgment did not delve into the specifics of the delay or the reasons behind it but focused on the procedural aspect of giving the petitioner an opportunity for reconsideration by the revisional authority. The Court did not award any costs in this matter.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily dealt with the procedural aspects of condonation of delay under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the directions given by the tribunal regarding seeking revision before the appropriate authority. The High Court's decision focused on ensuring that the petitioner had a fair opportunity for reconsideration on the issue of delay condonation, without expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the case.