2011 (5) TMI 909 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Substantial question of law

Delay in filing appeal:
The case involves an appeal against the Tribunal's order dismissing the appellants' application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appellants received a letter from the Commissioner on 20.5.1999, fixing the annual capacity of production. The appellants claimed they were waiting for a proper speaking order from the Department before filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found that the order determining the annual capacity of production was received on 20.5.1999, and the time for filing the appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act was within three months from the date of receipt. The Tribunal concluded that the cause shown by the appellants did not justify condonation of the delay, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application.

Condonation of delay:
The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 4 years, 7 months, and 8 days. The Tribunal correctly held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify condoning the delay. It was deemed a finding of fact, and no question of law was found to arise from this aspect. The Tribunal emphasized that when there is a quasi-judicial order, the appropriate remedy for a party is to seek redress through the available legal avenues, such as an appeal before the Tribunal. Mere representation to the authority who passed the order does not constitute sufficient cause for delay, especially when there is no power of review of their own order. The Central Excise Act does not confer any substantial review power in such cases, reinforcing the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures.

Substantial question of law:
The primary issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay raised any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the appellants failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame after receiving the order determining the annual production capacity. The Tribunal's analysis concluded that the reasons provided by the appellants for the delay were insufficient to warrant condonation. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming that no substantial question of law arose from the circumstances of the case.